From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
LSM List <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3] fs: detect that the i_rwsem has already been taken exclusively
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2017 17:06:16 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87shf2jzfr.fsf@xmission.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFx726wT4VprN-sHm6s8Q_PV_VjhTBC4goEbMcerYU1Tig@mail.gmail.com> (Linus Torvalds's message of "Sat, 30 Sep 2017 18:56:59 -0700")
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> writes:
> On Sep 30, 2017 18:33, "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com> wrote:.
>
> That would require a task_work or another kind of work callback so that
> the writes of the xattr are not synchronous with the vfs callback
> correct?
>
> No, why?
>
> You should just invalidate the IMA on xattr write or other operations that make the measurement invalid. You only need the inner
> lock.
>
> Why are you guys making up all these things just to make it complicated?
I am not trying to make things complicated I am just trying to
understand the conversation.
Unless I misread something it was being pointed out there are some vfs
operations today on which ima writes an ima xattr as a side effect. And
those operations hold the i_sem. So perhaps I am misunderstanding
things or writing the ima xattr needs to happen at some point. Which
implies something like queued work.
But perhaps I a misunderstanding the conversation and ima. I frequenly
misunderstand ima.
Eric
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [RFC PATCH 3/3] fs: detect that the i_rwsem has already been taken exclusively
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2017 17:06:16 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87shf2jzfr.fsf@xmission.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFx726wT4VprN-sHm6s8Q_PV_VjhTBC4goEbMcerYU1Tig@mail.gmail.com> (Linus Torvalds's message of "Sat, 30 Sep 2017 18:56:59 -0700")
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> writes:
> On Sep 30, 2017 18:33, "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com> wrote:.
>
> That would require a task_work or another kind of work callback so that
> the writes of the xattr are not synchronous with the vfs callback
> correct?
>
> No, why?
>
> You should just invalidate the IMA on xattr write or other operations that make the measurement invalid. You only need the inner
> lock.
>
> Why are you guys making up all these things just to make it complicated?
I am not trying to make things complicated I am just trying to
understand the conversation.
Unless I misread something it was being pointed out there are some vfs
operations today on which ima writes an ima xattr as a side effect. And
those operations hold the i_sem. So perhaps I am misunderstanding
things or writing the ima xattr needs to happen at some point. Which
implies something like queued work.
But perhaps I a misunderstanding the conversation and ima. I frequenly
misunderstand ima.
Eric
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in
the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-10-01 22:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 66+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-09-28 12:39 [RFC PATCH 0/3] define new read_iter file operation rwf flag Mimi Zohar
2017-09-28 12:39 ` Mimi Zohar
2017-09-28 12:39 ` [RFC PATCH 1/3] fs: define new read_iter " Mimi Zohar
2017-09-28 12:39 ` Mimi Zohar
2017-09-28 13:54 ` Matthew Wilcox
2017-09-28 13:54 ` Matthew Wilcox
2017-09-28 14:33 ` Mimi Zohar
2017-09-28 14:33 ` Mimi Zohar
2017-09-28 15:51 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-09-28 15:51 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-09-28 12:39 ` [RFC PATCH 2/3] integrity: use call_read_iter to calculate the file hash Mimi Zohar
2017-09-28 12:39 ` Mimi Zohar
2017-09-28 12:39 ` [RFC PATCH 3/3] fs: detect that the i_rwsem has already been taken exclusively Mimi Zohar
2017-09-28 12:39 ` Mimi Zohar
2017-09-28 22:02 ` Dave Chinner
2017-09-28 22:02 ` Dave Chinner
2017-09-28 23:39 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-09-28 23:39 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-09-29 0:12 ` Mimi Zohar
2017-09-29 0:12 ` Mimi Zohar
2017-09-29 0:12 ` Mimi Zohar
2017-09-29 0:33 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-09-29 0:33 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-09-29 1:53 ` Mimi Zohar
2017-09-29 1:53 ` Mimi Zohar
2017-09-29 1:53 ` Mimi Zohar
2017-09-29 3:26 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-09-29 3:26 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-10-01 1:33 ` Eric W. Biederman
2017-10-01 1:33 ` Eric W. Biederman
[not found] ` <CA+55aFx726wT4VprN-sHm6s8Q_PV_VjhTBC4goEbMcerYU1Tig@mail.gmail.com>
2017-10-01 12:08 ` Mimi Zohar
2017-10-01 12:08 ` Mimi Zohar
2017-10-01 12:08 ` Mimi Zohar
2017-10-01 18:41 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-10-01 18:41 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-10-01 22:34 ` Dave Chinner
2017-10-01 22:34 ` Dave Chinner
2017-10-01 23:15 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-10-01 23:15 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-10-02 3:54 ` Dave Chinner
2017-10-02 3:54 ` Dave Chinner
2017-10-01 23:42 ` Mimi Zohar
2017-10-01 23:42 ` Mimi Zohar
2017-10-01 23:42 ` Mimi Zohar
2017-10-02 3:25 ` Eric W. Biederman
2017-10-02 3:25 ` Eric W. Biederman
2017-10-02 3:25 ` Eric W. Biederman
2017-10-02 12:25 ` Mimi Zohar
2017-10-02 12:25 ` Mimi Zohar
2017-10-02 12:25 ` Mimi Zohar
2017-10-02 4:35 ` Dave Chinner
2017-10-02 4:35 ` Dave Chinner
2017-10-02 4:35 ` Dave Chinner
2017-10-02 4:35 ` Dave Chinner
2017-10-02 12:09 ` Mimi Zohar
2017-10-02 12:09 ` Mimi Zohar
2017-10-02 12:09 ` Mimi Zohar
2017-10-02 12:43 ` Jeff Layton
2017-10-02 12:43 ` Jeff Layton
2017-10-01 22:06 ` Eric W. Biederman [this message]
2017-10-01 22:06 ` Eric W. Biederman
2017-10-01 22:20 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-10-01 22:20 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-10-01 23:54 ` Mimi Zohar
2017-10-01 23:54 ` Mimi Zohar
2017-10-01 23:54 ` Mimi Zohar
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87shf2jzfr.fsf@xmission.com \
--to=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
--cc=zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.