* Kurt Garloff ([email protected]) wrote:
> You did not like my macro abuse, apparently.
> That's too bad, as it allowed you to do changes without changing
> hundreds of lines of code.
It was handy that way, but I think this way is just cleaner and simpler.
Esp. when checking against the function ptr, not the security_ops ptr.
> Just one remark:
> Make sure you don't set security_ops->XXX ever back to NULL or you
> might take an oops.
> Security module unloading is racy and always has been. It's not well
> defined at what point in time the new functions become effective.
> And we certainly don't want to use locking for performance reasons.
> One could think of using RCU, though, thus the security_ops pointer
> would only be changed after all CPUs schedule()d ...
Removing a security module has always been unsafe.
> In my version of the patches, I maintained the capability_security_ops
> structure fully filled-in and pointed security_ops to it, so you'll
> always have a valid function pointer. If you wanted to avoid a pointer
> compare, I had an integer to look at ...
Yes, that's how 2/5 is. At KS, there was specific mention of not doing
unconditional call. Comparing against security_ops only helps the case
where a module is not loaded. Checking the function ptr should help any
module with sparse ops.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |