On 10/18/07, Al Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 05:57:05AM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 09:17:40PM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote: > > > Think what happens if CPU1 adds to list and CPU2 sees write to smk_known > > *before* it sees write to ->smk_next. We see a single-element list and > > we'll be lucky if that single entry won't be FUBAR. > > While we are at it, what protects smack_cipso_count? > -
My fault. I sent to Casey a one-liner patch to make "smack_cipso_count++" be protected by the smk_cipsolock spinlock. We don't need a lock in the reading side since we don't do a write operation depending on that read, right ?. -- Ahmed S. Darwish Homepage: http://darwish.07.googlepages.com Blog: http://darwish-07.blogspot.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
