lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [May]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH BUGFIX -v2 -rc4] Smack: Respect 'unlabeled' netlabel mode
On Sat, 31 May 2008 02:57:51 +0300
"Ahmed S. Darwish" <darwish.07@gmail.com> wrote:

> + mutex_lock(&smack_ambient_lock);
> + nlsp->domain = kstrdup(smack_net_ambient, GFP_ATOMIC);
> + mutex_unlock(&smack_ambient_lock);

no no no no no. And no.

GFP_ATOMIC is *unreliable*. Using it in a "security" feature is a bug
- if it fails, the feature isn't secure any more.

Failing to check the kmalloc() return value might be a bug.

If we _need_ GFP_ATOMIC here then taking a mutex in a cannot-sleep
context is a bug.

The patch adds a kmalloc but doesn't add a kfree. Is it leaky?

Finally, why is there a need to take a lock around a single store
instruction?


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-05-31 01:27    [W:0.186 / U:0.300 seconds]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site