On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 2:38 AM Paul Moore <p...@paul-moore.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 8:23 PM Paul Moore <p...@paul-moore.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 8:15 AM Stephen Smalley <s...@tycho.nsa.gov> wrote:
> > > On 06/25/2018 12:34 PM, Jann Horn wrote:
> > > > If a user is accessing a file in selinuxfs with a pointer to a userspace
> > > > buffer that is backed by e.g. a userfaultfd, the userspace access can
> > > > stall indefinitely, which can block fsi->mutex if it is held.
> > > >
> > > > For sel_read_policy(), remove the locking, since this method doesn't
> > > > seem
> > > > to access anything that requires locking.
> > > >
> > > > For sel_read_bool(), move the user access below the locked region.
> > > >
> > > > For sel_write_bool() and sel_commit_bools_write(), move the user access
> > > > up above the locked region.
> > > >
> > > > Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org
> > > > Fixes: 1da177e4c3f4 ("Linux-2.6.12-rc2")
> > > > Signed-off-by: Jann Horn <ja...@google.com>
> > >
> > > Only question I have is wrt the Fixes line, i.e. was this an issue until
> > > userfaultfd was introduced, and if not,
> > > do we need it to be back-ported any further than the commit which
> > > introduced it.
> >
> > Considering we are talking about v2.6.12 I have to wonder if anyone is
> > bothering with backports for kernels that old. Even the RHEL-5.x
> > based systems are at least on v2.6.18.
> >
> > Regardless, I think this is fine to merge as-is; thanks everyone.
>
> FYI, I did have to remove the "fsi" variable from sel_read_policy() to
> keep the compiler happy. Please double check to make sure your code
> compiles cleanly in the future.
Oof, don't know how I missed that. Sorry, I'll be more careful.
_______________________________________________
Selinux mailing list
Selinux@tycho.nsa.gov
To unsubscribe, send email to selinux-le...@tycho.nsa.gov.
To get help, send an email containing "help" to selinux-requ...@tycho.nsa.gov.
