On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 4:25 AM Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 5:34 PM Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 4:38 PM Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Please try to come up with a better solution that leverages proper > > > locking primitives, and if that isn't possible please explain (in > > > detail) why. > > > > It's been a little while so I wanted to check the status of this ... > > have you spent any time on this, or is your position such that this is > > the best you can come up with for a fix? > > Sorry, I had to put this on the "let me get back to this later" list > because of other priorities and didn't get to pop it out of that list > yet :/ I haven't yet looked at other alternatives. Okay. I'm going to go ahead and merge this simply because it does fix a visible problem, but I really would like you to revisit this in the near future to see if there is a better fix. While I'm going to mark this with the stable tag, considering the relatively low rate of occurrence on modern kernels and the fact that I'm not in love with the fix, I'm going to merge this into selinux/next and not selinux/stable-5.15. This should give us another couple of weeks in case you come up with a better fix in the near term. -- paul moore www.paul-moore.com
