From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paul Moore Subject: Re: [PATCH] SELinux: Fix RCU deref check warning in sel_netport_insert() Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 18:51:19 -0400 Message-ID: <4210290.EWfROnk5ys@sifl> References: <2230709.7n5noARWFd@sifl> <20111003135824.15303.10147.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <1624.1317821523@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: selinux@tycho.nsa.gov, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: David Howells Return-path: Received: from mail-wy0-f174.google.com ([74.125.82.174]:56399 "EHLO mail-wy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759329Ab1JFWvZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Oct 2011 18:51:25 -0400 Received: by wyg34 with SMTP id 34so3340604wyg.19 for ; Thu, 06 Oct 2011 15:51:24 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1624.1317821523@redhat.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wednesday, October 05, 2011 02:32:03 PM David Howells wrote: > Paul Moore wrote: > > We should probably do the same for the security/selinux/netif.c as it > > uses the same logic; David is this something you want to tackle? > > netif.c doesn't use any rcu_dereference*() function directly, though it does > use list_for_each_entry_rcu(). However, I'm not sure that's a problem. > What is it you're referring to? My apologies, the netport.c and netif.c code is very, very similar and whenever I see a patch just for one of the two it causes a reaction that you saw above. While netif.c has a similar function, sel_netif_insert(), it is slightly different and doesn't need a rcu_dereference() ad the netport.c code does. Sorry for the confusion. -- paul moore www.paul-moore.com