From: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
To: Eric Paris <eparis@parisplace.org>
Cc: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>,
sds@tycho.nsa.gov, Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: suspicious RCU usage in security/selinux/netnode.c
Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 11:12:27 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1923713.Kphzxkir2y@sifl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACLa4pt=Hh1=E9Jno_BAU-6stRL=hY3wehpWycKCYYJbJzYEGw@mail.gmail.com>
On Tuesday, May 15, 2012 10:52:07 AM Eric Paris wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 10:46 AM, Paul E. McKenney
>
> <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 10:24:23AM -0400, Eric Paris wrote:
> >> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 1:16 AM, Paul E. McKenney
> >>
> >> <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> >> > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 12:41:45AM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> >> >> I just triggered this on Linus' current tree.
> >> >
> >> > This is a bare:
> >> >
> >> > rcu_dereference(sel_netnode_hash[idx].list.prev)
> >> >
> >> > which needs to be in an RCU read-side critical section. Alternatively,
> >> > the above should instead be something like:
> >> >
> >> > rcu_dereference_check(sel_netnode_hash[idx].list.prev,
> >> > lockdep_is_held(&sel_netnode_lock));
> >>
> >> Right, but that 'bare' dereference comes from
> >> list_for_each_entry_rcu(), [from sel_netnode_sid_slow()] which I don't
> >> see how to easily annotate with the lock. Nor do I think it's within
> >> my brain power (or my willingness to maintain such in the future) to
> >> want to open code that logic.
> >
> > You lost me on this one. The lockdep splat called out the
> > rcu_dereference() above, not a list_for_each_entry_rcu(). Besides which,
> > the list_for_each_entry_rcu() does not do the checking -- at the time,
> > I was not willing to explode the API that much.
>
> Ohhhh, ok. I assumed we needed to annotate list_for_each_entry_rcu()
> under the spinlock as well as the bare dereference in the insert code.
> Ok, should be very easy to fix, although the list running code is
> still going to be un-annotated in any way. Thanks
Sorry, email filters went awry and I lost this thread until Eric pointed it
out to me ...
Despite a common first name, the other Paul is the RCU expert, no I
unfortunately. Can someone explain the difference between
rcu_dereference_check() and rcu_dereference_protected()? We use
rcu_dereference_protected() for a very similar reason in
selinux/netport.c:sel_netport_insert() and it seems like a better choice ... ?
I'll throw a patch together but wanted to clear this up first.
--
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-05-15 15:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-05-15 4:41 suspicious RCU usage in security/selinux/netnode.c Dave Jones
2012-05-15 5:16 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-05-15 14:24 ` Eric Paris
2012-05-15 14:46 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-05-15 14:52 ` Eric Paris
2012-05-15 15:12 ` Paul Moore [this message]
2012-05-15 15:37 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-05-15 18:35 ` Paul Moore
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=1923713.Kphzxkir2y@sifl \
--to=paul@paul-moore.com \
--cc=davej@redhat.com \
--cc=eparis@parisplace.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=sds@tycho.nsa.gov \
/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