On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 10:05 AM Stephen Smalley <stephen.smalley.work@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 9:59 AM Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Remove the security_policydb_len() calls from sel_open_policy() and > > instead update the inode size from the size returned from > > security_read_policy(). > > > > Since after this change security_policydb_len() is only called from > > security_load_policy(), remove it entirely and just open-code it there. > > > > Also, since security_load_policy() is always called with fsi->mutex > > held, make it dereference the policy pointer directly and drop the > > unnecessary RCU locking. > > > > Signed-off-by: Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@xxxxxxxxxx> > > One comment below but nonetheless: > Acked-by: Stephen Smalley <stephen.smalley.work@xxxxxxxxx> > > > diff --git a/security/selinux/ss/services.c b/security/selinux/ss/services.c > > index 8381614627569..7cc2f7486c18f 100644 > > --- a/security/selinux/ss/services.c > > +++ b/security/selinux/ss/services.c > > @@ -3912,11 +3896,17 @@ int security_read_policy(struct selinux_state *state, > > int rc; > > struct policy_file fp; > > > > - if (!selinux_initialized(state)) > > + /* > > + * NOTE: We do not need to take the rcu read lock > > + * around the code below because other policy-modifying > > + * operations are already excluded by selinuxfs via > > + * fsi->mutex. > > + */ > > + policy = rcu_dereference_check(state->policy, 1); > > + if (!policy) > > return -EINVAL; > > If/when my patch to move the mutex to selinux_state and use it in > rcu_dereference_protected() lands, we'll want to change this one over > too. FWIW, I felt the mutex move was more significant than this patchset so I merged it first. Ondrej, would you mind rebasing this patch and making the changes above? Thanks. -- paul moore www.paul-moore.com
