From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-security-module <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ima: prevent dead lock when a file is opened for direct io
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 16:20:24 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130226162024.GI4503@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1361395671.29360.26.camel@falcor1>
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 04:27:51PM -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> Hi Al,
>
> Are there any negative repercussions to temporarily removing the
> o_direct flag in order to calculate the file hash?
>
> thanks,
>
> Mimi
> -----
>
> Files are measured or appraised based on the IMA policy. When a file
> in policy is opened for read with the O_DIRECT flag set, a deadlock
> occurs due to do_blockdev_direct_IO() taking i_mutex before calling
> filemap_write_and_wait_range(). The i_mutex was previously taken in
> process_measurement(). This patch temporarily removes the O_DIRECT
> flag in order to calculate the hash and restores it once completed.
Why does process_measurement() hold ->i_mutex across that?
It really sounds like "we kinda hope no ->read() will take ->i_mutex,
oops, at least one case does, umm... let's kludge around a bit and
hope no other case shows up".
Locking rules should be documented and they should make sense. You are
introducing a new one and it's really convoluted - "no ->read() instance
for a regular file shall take ->i_mutex unless it's an O_DIRECT open".
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-02-26 16:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-02-20 21:27 [PATCH] ima: prevent dead lock when a file is opened for direct io Mimi Zohar
2013-02-26 13:41 ` Kasatkin, Dmitry
2013-02-26 16:20 ` Al Viro [this message]
2013-02-26 19:32 ` Mimi Zohar
2013-02-26 20:34 ` Al Viro
2013-02-26 23:22 ` Mimi Zohar
2013-02-27 9:21 ` Kasatkin, Dmitry
2013-02-27 12:26 ` Kasatkin, Dmitry
2013-02-27 13:57 ` Mimi Zohar
2013-02-27 19:00 ` Al Viro
2013-02-27 19:45 ` Mimi Zohar
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=20130226162024.GI4503@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
--to=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=zohar@linux.vnet.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