From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from goalie.tycho.ncsc.mil (goalie [144.51.3.250]) by tarius.tycho.ncsc.mil (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id p96MpQXG016124 for ; Thu, 6 Oct 2011 18:51:26 -0400 Received: from mail-wy0-f181.google.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by msux-gh1-uea01.nsa.gov (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id p96MpO00027026 for ; Thu, 6 Oct 2011 22:51:25 GMT Received: by wyf19 with SMTP id 19so3823742wyf.12 for ; Thu, 06 Oct 2011 15:51:24 -0700 (PDT) From: Paul Moore To: David Howells Cc: selinux@tycho.nsa.gov, netdev@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] SELinux: Fix RCU deref check warning in sel_netport_insert() Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 18:51:19 -0400 Message-ID: <4210290.EWfROnk5ys@sifl> In-Reply-To: <1624.1317821523@redhat.com> References: <2230709.7n5noARWFd@sifl> <20111003135824.15303.10147.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <1624.1317821523@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-selinux@tycho.nsa.gov List-Id: selinux@tycho.nsa.gov On Wednesday, October 05, 2011 02:32:03 PM David Howells wrote: > Paul Moore wrote: > > We should probably do the same for the security/selinux/netif.c as it > > uses the same logic; David is this something you want to tackle? > > netif.c doesn't use any rcu_dereference*() function directly, though it does > use list_for_each_entry_rcu(). However, I'm not sure that's a problem. > What is it you're referring to? My apologies, the netport.c and netif.c code is very, very similar and whenever I see a patch just for one of the two it causes a reaction that you saw above. While netif.c has a similar function, sel_netif_insert(), it is slightly different and doesn't need a rcu_dereference() ad the netport.c code does. Sorry for the confusion. -- paul moore www.paul-moore.com -- This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list. If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov with the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paul Moore Subject: Re: [PATCH] SELinux: Fix RCU deref check warning in sel_netport_insert() Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 18:51:19 -0400 Message-ID: <4210290.EWfROnk5ys@sifl> References: <2230709.7n5noARWFd@sifl> <20111003135824.15303.10147.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <1624.1317821523@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: selinux@tycho.nsa.gov, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: David Howells Return-path: Received: from mail-wy0-f174.google.com ([74.125.82.174]:56399 "EHLO mail-wy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759329Ab1JFWvZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Oct 2011 18:51:25 -0400 Received: by wyg34 with SMTP id 34so3340604wyg.19 for ; Thu, 06 Oct 2011 15:51:24 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1624.1317821523@redhat.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wednesday, October 05, 2011 02:32:03 PM David Howells wrote: > Paul Moore wrote: > > We should probably do the same for the security/selinux/netif.c as it > > uses the same logic; David is this something you want to tackle? > > netif.c doesn't use any rcu_dereference*() function directly, though it does > use list_for_each_entry_rcu(). However, I'm not sure that's a problem. > What is it you're referring to? My apologies, the netport.c and netif.c code is very, very similar and whenever I see a patch just for one of the two it causes a reaction that you saw above. While netif.c has a similar function, sel_netif_insert(), it is slightly different and doesn't need a rcu_dereference() ad the netport.c code does. Sorry for the confusion. -- paul moore www.paul-moore.com