From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: a.beregalov@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-next@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com, jmorris@namei.org
Subject: Re: next-20090220: XFS, IMA: BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at mm/slub.c:1613
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 14:28:07 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090220142807.a28734a8.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1235168219.3019.4.camel@localhost.localdomain>
On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 17:16:59 -0500
Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> integrity: ima iint radix_tree_lookup locking fix
>
> Based on Andrew Morton's comments:
> - add missing locks around radix_tree_lookup in ima_iint_insert()
>
> Signed-off-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@us.ibm.com>
>
> Index: security-testing-2.6/security/integrity/ima/ima_iint.c
> ===================================================================
> --- security-testing-2.6.orig/security/integrity/ima/ima_iint.c
> +++ security-testing-2.6/security/integrity/ima/ima_iint.c
> @@ -73,8 +73,10 @@ out:
> if (rc < 0) {
> kmem_cache_free(iint_cache, iint);
> if (rc == -EEXIST) {
> + spin_lock(&ima_iint_lock);
> iint = radix_tree_lookup(&ima_iint_store,
> (unsigned long)inode);
> + spin_unlock(&ima_iint_lock);
> } else
> iint = NULL;
> }
Can the -EEXIST ever actually happen?
On the inode_init_always() path (at least), I don't think that any
other thread of control can have access to this inode*, so there is no
way in which a race can result in someone else adding this inode
first?
Also, idle question: why does the radix tree exist at all? Would it
have been possible to just add a `struct ima_iint_cache *' field to the
inode instead?
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: jmorris@namei.org, linux-next@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, a.beregalov@gmail.com,
xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: next-20090220: XFS, IMA: BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at mm/slub.c:1613
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 14:28:07 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090220142807.a28734a8.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1235168219.3019.4.camel@localhost.localdomain>
On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 17:16:59 -0500
Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> integrity: ima iint radix_tree_lookup locking fix
>
> Based on Andrew Morton's comments:
> - add missing locks around radix_tree_lookup in ima_iint_insert()
>
> Signed-off-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@us.ibm.com>
>
> Index: security-testing-2.6/security/integrity/ima/ima_iint.c
> ===================================================================
> --- security-testing-2.6.orig/security/integrity/ima/ima_iint.c
> +++ security-testing-2.6/security/integrity/ima/ima_iint.c
> @@ -73,8 +73,10 @@ out:
> if (rc < 0) {
> kmem_cache_free(iint_cache, iint);
> if (rc == -EEXIST) {
> + spin_lock(&ima_iint_lock);
> iint = radix_tree_lookup(&ima_iint_store,
> (unsigned long)inode);
> + spin_unlock(&ima_iint_lock);
> } else
> iint = NULL;
> }
Can the -EEXIST ever actually happen?
On the inode_init_always() path (at least), I don't think that any
other thread of control can have access to this inode*, so there is no
way in which a race can result in someone else adding this inode
first?
Also, idle question: why does the radix tree exist at all? Would it
have been possible to just add a `struct ima_iint_cache *' field to the
inode instead?
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-02-20 22:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-02-20 11:00 next-20090220: XFS, IMA: BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at mm/slub.c:1613 Alexander Beregalov
2009-02-20 11:00 ` Alexander Beregalov
2009-02-20 11:00 ` Alexander Beregalov
2009-02-20 20:22 ` Andrew Morton
2009-02-20 20:22 ` Andrew Morton
2009-02-20 22:16 ` Mimi Zohar
2009-02-20 22:16 ` Mimi Zohar
2009-02-20 22:28 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2009-02-20 22:28 ` Andrew Morton
2009-02-22 1:49 ` Mimi Zohar
2009-02-22 1:49 ` Mimi Zohar
2009-02-24 19:14 ` Christoph Hellwig
2009-02-24 22:34 ` Dave Chinner
2009-02-24 22:39 ` Mimi Zohar
2009-02-24 22:39 ` Mimi Zohar
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20090220142807.a28734a8.akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=a.beregalov@gmail.com \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-next@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
--cc=zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.