lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Apr]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] scm: fold __scm_send() into scm_send()
From
Date
Hi, Stephen and James,

Looks like the selinux_sk_ctxid() call implemented in James' patch also
requires the sk_callback_lock (see below). I am planning to introduce a
new exported fucntion selinux_sock_ctxid() which does not require any
locking. Comments?

thanks,
Catherine

Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov> wrote on 03/21/2006 08:42:08 AM:

> On Tue, 2006-03-21 at 08:32 -0500, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> > > I don't expect security_sk_sid() to be terribly expensive. It's not
> > > an AVC check, it's just propagating a label. But I've not done any
> > > benchmarking on that.
> >
> > No permission check there, but it looks like it does read lock
> > sk_callback_lock. Not sure if that is truly justified here.
>
> Ah, that is because it is also called from the xfrm code, introduced by
> Trent's patches. But that locking shouldn't be necessary from scm_send,
> right? So she likely wants a separate hook for it to avoid that
> overhead, or even just a direct SELinux interface?
>
> --
> Stephen Smalley
> National Security Agency
>

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-04-06 19:55    [W:0.050 / U:1.312 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site