From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
To: Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <nramas@linux.microsoft.com>,
zohar@linux.ibm.com, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org
Cc: eric.snowberg@oracle.com, dhowells@redhat.com,
mathew.j.martineau@linux.intel.com, matthewgarrett@google.com,
sashal@kernel.org, jamorris@linux.microsoft.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, keyrings@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] IMA: Call workqueue functions to measure queued keys
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 11:01:39 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1576634499.14900.10.camel@HansenPartnership.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <152580f3-2a1f-fa33-cc25-f25747a470a5@linux.microsoft.com>
On Tue, 2019-12-17 at 14:22 -0800, Lakshmi Ramasubramanian wrote:
> Hi James,
>
> > > >
> > > > This is the problem: in the race case you may still be adding
> > > > keys to
> > > > the queue after the other thread has processed it. Those keys
> > > > won't get
> > > > processed because the flag is now false in the post check so
> > > > the
> > > > current thread won't process them either.
> > > >
> > > > James
> > > >
>
> Please let me know if you still think there is a race condition.
>
> If yes, please explain how a key would be added to the queue after
> ima_process_queued_keys() has processed queued keys.
> ima_process_keys flag will be true when queued keys have been
> processed.
This code is confusing me:
+ /*
+ * To avoid holding the mutex when processing queued keys,
+ * transfer the queued keys with the mutex held to a temp list,
+ * release the mutex, and then process the queued keys from
+ * the temp list.
+ *
+ * Since ima_process_keys is set to true, any new key will be
+ * processed immediately and not be queued.
+ */
+ INIT_LIST_HEAD(&temp_ima_keys);
+
+ mutex_lock(&ima_keys_mutex);
+
+ if (!ima_process_keys) {
+ ima_process_keys = true;
+
+ if (!list_empty(&ima_keys)) {
+ list_for_each_entry_safe(entry, tmp, &ima_keys, list)
+ list_move_tail(&entry->list, &temp_ima_keys);
+ process = true;
+ }
+ }
+
+ mutex_unlock(&ima_keys_mutex);
+
+ if (!process)
+ return;
+
+ list_for_each_entry_safe(entry, tmp, &temp_ima_keys, list) {
+ process_buffer_measurement(entry->payload, entry->payload_len,
+ entry->keyring_name, KEY_CHECK, 0,
+ entry->keyring_name);
+ list_del(&entry->list);
+ ima_free_key_entry(entry);
+ }
+}
+
The direct implication of the comment and the lock dance with the
temporary list and the processed flag is that stuff can be added to the
ima_keys list after you drop the mutex. Your explanation in the prior
couple of emails says that nothing can be added because the
ima_process_keys flag setting prevents it. If the latter is true, you
can simply drop the lock after setting the flag and rely on ima_keys
not changing to run it through process_buffer_measurement without
needing any of the intermediate list or the processed flag. If the
latter isn't true then any key added to ima_keys after the mutex is
dropped is never processed.
James
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-12-18 2:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-12-13 17:18 [PATCH v4 0/2] IMA: Deferred measurement of keys Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
2019-12-13 17:18 ` [PATCH v4 1/2] IMA: Define workqueue for early boot "key" measurements Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
2019-12-16 12:30 ` Mimi Zohar
2019-12-16 23:44 ` Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
2019-12-17 10:54 ` Mimi Zohar
2019-12-13 17:18 ` [PATCH v4 2/2] IMA: Call workqueue functions to measure queued keys Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
2019-12-13 17:25 ` James Bottomley
2019-12-13 17:31 ` Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
2019-12-15 15:22 ` James Bottomley
2019-12-16 1:12 ` Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
2019-12-16 6:53 ` James Bottomley
2019-12-16 13:05 ` Mimi Zohar
2019-12-16 19:20 ` Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
2019-12-16 21:17 ` James Bottomley
2019-12-16 21:37 ` Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
2019-12-16 21:52 ` Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
2019-12-17 22:22 ` Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
2019-12-18 2:01 ` James Bottomley [this message]
2019-12-18 2:44 ` Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
2019-12-18 3:00 ` Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
2019-12-18 3:24 ` James Bottomley
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=1576634499.14900.10.camel@HansenPartnership.com \
--to=james.bottomley@hansenpartnership.com \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=eric.snowberg@oracle.com \
--cc=jamorris@linux.microsoft.com \
--cc=keyrings@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathew.j.martineau@linux.intel.com \
--cc=matthewgarrett@google.com \
--cc=nramas@linux.microsoft.com \
--cc=sashal@kernel.org \
--cc=zohar@linux.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).