From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Seth Arnold Subject: Re: [PATCH] LSM file locking patch is bogus Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 20:02:21 -0700 Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20020727200221.C15614@wirex.com> References: <20020727233149.G1441@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-md5; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="vEao7xgI/oilGqZ+" Cc: Linus Torvalds , linux-security-module@wirex.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: To: Matthew Wilcox Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020727233149.G1441@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk>; from matthew@wil.cx on Sat, Jul 27, 2002 at 11:31:49PM +0100 List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org --vEao7xgI/oilGqZ+ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Jul 27, 2002 at 11:31:49PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > - Remove third argument from file_lock security op. Whether the lock is > blocking or not cannot make any difference to a security module! Matthew, thanks for the patch. However, I'm not sure that the "blocking" field can be removed without opening up some race conditions. Please see the following analysis of the situation by Antony Edwards, and make sure that removing the blocking field is still safe: http://mail.wirex.com/pipermail/linux-security-module/2002-January/002568.h= tml (I'd be more than happy to forward the original email to anyone who dislikes web browsers as much as I do. Please mail me privately if you would like me to send you a copy.) --=20 http://sardonix.org/ --vEao7xgI/oilGqZ+ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE9Q168+9nuM9mwoJkRAtLzAKCX4rdejDovQwAoKJ36Xjbr5xHxLQCgqBwl w9wET9nk6yU7E5G9ODTOlZ0= =gPIs -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --vEao7xgI/oilGqZ+--