On 10/18/07, Al Viro <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 05:57:05AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 09:17:40PM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>
> > Think what happens if CPU1 adds to list and CPU2 sees write to smk_known
> > *before* it sees write to ->smk_next. We see a single-element list and
> > we'll be lucky if that single entry won't be FUBAR.
>
> While we are at it, what protects smack_cipso_count?
> -
My fault. I sent to Casey a one-liner patch to make "smack_cipso_count++"
be protected by the smk_cipsolock spinlock.
We don't need a lock in the reading side since we don't do a write operation
depending on that read, right ?.
--
Ahmed S. Darwish
Homepage: http://darwish.07.googlepages.com
Blog: http://darwish-07.blogspot.com
-
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]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
