On Sun, Dec 24, 2006 at 04:25:11PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 05:21:24 +0800
> "Adam J. Richter" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Under 2.6.20-rc1 and 2.6.20-rc2, I get the following complaint
>> for several network programs running on my system:
>>
>> [ 156.381868] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at net/core/sock.c:1523
[...]
> There's a glaring bug in selinux_netlbl_inode_permission() - taking
> lock_sock() inside rcu_read_lock().
>
> I would again draw attention to Documentation/SubmitChecklist. In
> particular please always always always enable all kernel debugging options
> when developing and testing new kernel code. And everything else in that
> file, too.
>
> <guesses that this was tested on ia64>
I have not yet performed the 21 steps of
linux-2.6.20-rc3/Documentation/SubmitChecklist, which I think is a
great objectives list for future automation or some kind of community
web site. I hope to find time to make progress through that
checklist, but, in the meantime, I think the world may nevertheless be
infinitesmally better off if I post the patch that I'm currently
using that seems to fix the problem, seeing as how rc3 has passed
with no fix incorporated.
I think the intent of the offending code was to avoid doing
a lock_sock() in a presumably common case where there was no need to
take the lock. So, I have kept the presumably fast test to exit
early.
When it turns out to be necessary to take lock_sock(), RCU is
unlocked, then lock_sock is taken, the RCU is locked again, and
the test is repeated.
If I am wrong about lock_sock being expensive, I can
delete the lines that do the early return.
By the way, in a change not included in this patch,
I also tried consolidating the RCU locking in this file into a macro
IF_NLBL_REQUIRE(sksec, action), where "action" is the code
fragment to be executed with rcu_read_lock() held, although this
required splitting a couple of functions in half.
Anyhow, here is my current patch as MIME attachment.
Comments and labor in getting it through SubmitChecklist would
both be welcome.
Adam Richter
--- linux-2.6.20-rc3/security/selinux/ss/services.c 2007-01-02 01:47:40.000000000 +0800
+++ linux/security/selinux/ss/services.c 2007-01-02 15:36:30.000000000 +0800
@@ -2658,14 +2658,22 @@
rcu_read_lock();
if (sksec->nlbl_state != NLBL_REQUIRE) {
rcu_read_unlock();
return 0;
}
+ rcu_read_unlock();
+
+
+ rc = 0;
lock_sock(sock->sk);
- rc = selinux_netlbl_socket_setsid(sock, sksec->sid);
- release_sock(sock->sk);
+ rcu_read_lock();
+
+ if (sksec->nlbl_state == NLBL_REQUIRE)
+ rc = selinux_netlbl_socket_setsid(sock, sksec->sid);
+
rcu_read_unlock();
+ release_sock(sock->sk);
return rc;
}
/**
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
