Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] scm: fold __scm_send() into scm_send() | From | Xiaolan Zhang <> | Date | Thu, 6 Apr 2006 13:52:48 -0400 |
| |
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/
| |