From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id pB6Gq8iE242276 for ; Tue, 6 Dec 2011 10:52:08 -0600 Received: from e2.ny.us.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id BBFE057844F for ; Tue, 6 Dec 2011 08:52:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from e2.ny.us.ibm.com (e2.ny.us.ibm.com [32.97.182.142]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id zclFQX8MlAKfFQew for ; Tue, 06 Dec 2011 08:52:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from /spool/local by e2.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Tue, 6 Dec 2011 11:52:02 -0500 Received: from d03av06.boulder.ibm.com (d03av06.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.245]) by d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id pB6GlMKx308870 for ; Tue, 6 Dec 2011 11:47:23 -0500 Received: from d03av06.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av06.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id pB6GlMNj004478 for ; Tue, 6 Dec 2011 09:47:22 -0700 Subject: Re: [PATCH] security: Delay freeing inode->i_security till the end of RCU grace period From: Mimi Zohar Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2011 11:44:39 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1323187778.31919.1469.camel@chandra-lucid.austin.ibm.com> References: <1323110541.31919.1451.camel@chandra-lucid.austin.ibm.com> <20111206151429.GB11874@infradead.org> <1323187778.31919.1469.camel@chandra-lucid.austin.ibm.com> Message-ID: <1323189880.2165.43.camel@falcor> Mime-Version: 1.0 List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: sekharan@linux.vnet.ibm.com Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Eric Paris , linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, XFS Mailing List On Tue, 2011-12-06 at 10:09 -0600, MAILER-DAEMON wrote: > On Tue, 2011-12-06 at 10:14 -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 12:42:21PM -0600, Chandra Seetharaman wrote: > > > while running test case 234 from xfstests test suite, I was getting an > > > occational memory fault in inode_has_perm() with the following stack > > > > Interesting. Given that have no good way to free other data with the > > normal inode callback it looks like we indeed need to do this > > separately. > > > > What about IMA or similar monsters? Posix ACLs already are covered at > > least. > > > > Hi Christoph, > > The problem is pretty much located in the function > fs/inode.c:destroy_inode(), which calls __destroy_inode(), which does > the freeing, and then does the call_rcu() on the inode. > > I looked at all the functions in __destroy_inode() and found only > security_inode_free() to be problematic. Others would handle the > situation gracefully. > > Sorry for the lack of knowledge. what is IMA ? > > Chandra security_inode_free() calls security/integrity/iint.c: integrity_inode_free(), which frees the 'iint'. For more information on IMA, refer to linux-ima.sf.net. thanks, Mimi _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs