Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 30 May 2008 16:25:00 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [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?
| |