Re: SELinux + ubifs: possible circular locking dependency

[Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com>]

On Thu, 2013-02-14 at 12:56 +0100, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
> On 02/14/2013 08:15 AM, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> > Mark, how about this one? I compiled it and ran on my fedora 16 with
> > SElinux enabled, no obvious issues.
> > 
> > From a19350097200570571aa522afebb96b34db534f4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Artem Bityutskiy <artem.bityutskiy@linux.intel.com>
> > Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 09:07:36 +0200
> > Subject: [PATCH] selinux: do not confuse lockdep
> > 
> > Selinux has per-inode mutexes called 'isec->lock', and they are initialized in
> > the same place, which makes lockdep treat all of the them as if they were
> > identical. However, locking rules may be a little bit different depending on
> > the file-system, so we should put these locks to separate classes, just like we
> > do for 'i_mutex'. Namely, we should put them to per-FS type classes, which is
> > exactly what this patch does.
> > 
> > The problem this patch intends to fix is a strange lockdep warning, which I,
> > frankly speaking, do not really understand, but I believe the root-cause should
> > be fixed by this patch.
> 
> Thanks, this works with mainline, but not with my xattr patch series
> applied.

Hmm, probably I have to annotate the ui mutex. Let's drop security
mailing lists from the loop so far, I'll come up with a patch tomorrow.

-- 
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy