Hello.
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > Isn't security_inode_create() a part of VFS internals?
> It's not. security_inode_create is part of the LSM infrastructure, and
> the actual methods are part of security modules and definitively not
> VFS internals.
The reason why I want to access namespace_sem inside security_inode_create() is that
it doesn't receive "struct vfsmount" parameter.
If "struct vfsmount" *were* passed to security_inode_create(),
I have no need to access namespace_sem.
And now, since calling down_read(&namespace_sem) causes deadlock, I'm looking for a solution.
What you said ("I'd start looking for design bugs in whatever code you have using it first.")
sounds "never try to implement pathname based access control at security_inode_create()",
which makes AppArmor (for OpenSuSE 10.1/10.2) and TOMOYO unable to apply access control.
At first, I thought that this lockdep's warning is a false positive,
since "struct inode" is allocated/freed dynamically.
But the warning still appears even after I disabled freeing memory
at destroy_inode() in fs/namei.c (so that address of locking object
in "struct inode" never be reused), it is likely genuine.
Regards.
-
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]
