linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Kevin O'Connor" <kevin@koconnor.net>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Cc: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Roman Zippel <zippel@linux-m68k.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] In-kernel module loader 1/7
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 03:38:30 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20020921033830.A32446@arizona.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20020920040241.4C03F2C0D9@lists.samba.org>; from rusty@rustcorp.com.au on Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 11:22:08AM +1000

On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 11:22:08AM +1000, Rusty Russell wrote:
> Well, it's up to you.  You *could* implement:
> 
> #define call_security(method , ...)					\
> 	({ int __ret;							\
> 	   if (try_module_get(security_ops->owner)) {			\
> 		__ret = security_ops->method(__VA_ARGS__);		\
> 		module_put(security_ops->owner);			\
> 	   } else							\
> 		/* If unloading or loading, default to "allow" */	\
> 		__ret = 0;						\
> 	  __ret;							\
> 	})
[...]
> Now, if you don't have CONFIG_MODULES this becomes the code as it is
> now.

Hi Rusty,

Please consider the following non-module code snippet:

int
sys_enable_foo_security()
{
        foocache = kmalloc(100000);
        register_security(&foo_ops);
}

int
sys_disable_foo_security()
{
        unregister_security(&foo_ops);
        kfree(foocache);  // OOPS
}


If I follow Roman's argument correctly, the unload race is not module
specific.  (The problem is that unregister_security() only asserts that no
new callers will be made to foo_ops, it doesn't guarantee that there are no
current callers.)

In the above example, one solution would be to reference count foocache.
However, another viable solution would be to ref-count the security_ops
field.

Anyway, given that the problem is a general resource management issue (and
not module specific), I think one could implement call_security() with less
overhead:

#define call_security(method , ...)					\
	({ int __ret;							\
	   read_lock(&SecurityLock);                                    \
	   __ret = security_ops->method(__VA_ARGS__);                   \
           read_unlock(&SecurityLock);                                  \
	  __ret;							\
	})

where (un)register_security used a write_lock to guard accesses to
security_ops changes.

This implementation is still a bit sluggish (as well as limiting), however
one could conceivable use RCU or a similar mechanism to further reduce
overhead of the common path.

-Kevin


P.S. it may also be possible for this alternate solution to work:

#define call_security(method , ...)					\
	({ int __ret;							\
           atomic_inc(&SecurityRefCount);                               \
	   __ret = security_ops->method(__VA_ARGS__);                   \
           atomic_dec(&SecurityRefCount);                               \
	})

where unregister_security set the security_ops field to a dummy value and
then waited for the ref-count to hit zero before returning.  However, this
may depend too heavily on memory ordering..

-- 
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
 | Kevin O'Connor                     "BTW, IMHO we need a FAQ for      |
 | kevin@koconnor.net                  'IMHO', 'FAQ', 'BTW', etc. !"    |
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

  parent reply	other threads:[~2002-09-21  7:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 56+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2002-09-18  2:05 [PATCH] In-kernel module loader 1/7 Rusty Russell
2002-09-18 22:59 ` Roman Zippel
2002-09-19  1:00   ` Rusty Russell
2002-09-19  2:19     ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2002-09-19  3:57       ` Rusty Russell
2002-09-19 10:44     ` Roman Zippel
2002-09-19 12:51       ` Rusty Russell
2002-09-19 13:54         ` Roman Zippel
2002-09-19 18:38           ` Greg KH
2002-09-19 18:58             ` Alan Cox
2002-09-19 20:11               ` Greg KH
2002-09-19 20:42                 ` Roman Zippel
2002-09-30 15:32                 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-10-03 18:53                   ` Rob Landley
2002-10-04  0:10                     ` Daniel Phillips
2002-10-15  3:25                   ` Rusty Russell
2002-10-15 15:28                     ` Daniel Phillips
2002-10-15 23:53                       ` Rusty Russell
2002-10-16  2:59                         ` Daniel Phillips
2002-10-16  6:11                           ` Rusty Russell
2002-10-16 17:33                             ` Daniel Phillips
2002-10-16 22:48                               ` Rusty Russell
2002-10-17  1:57                                 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-10-17  7:41                                   ` Rusty Russell
2002-10-17 14:49                                     ` Roman Zippel
2002-10-17 14:56                                     ` your mail Kai Germaschewski
2002-10-18  2:47                                       ` Rusty Russell
2002-10-18 21:50                                         ` Kai Germaschewski
2002-10-17 17:20                                     ` [RFC] change format of LSM hooks Daniel Phillips
2002-10-18  2:04                                       ` Rusty Russell
2002-10-17 17:25                                     ` Daniel Phillips
2002-10-16  8:15                         ` [PATCH] In-kernel module loader 1/7 Chris Wright
2002-09-19 20:10             ` Roman Zippel
2002-09-20  1:22             ` Rusty Russell
2002-09-20  4:32               ` Greg KH
2002-09-20  9:25                 ` Rusty Russell
2002-09-21  7:38               ` Kevin O'Connor [this message]
2002-09-22 23:31                 ` Rusty Russell
2002-09-19 23:44           ` Rusty Russell
2002-09-20  9:32             ` Roman Zippel
2002-09-21  4:17               ` Rusty Russell
2002-09-21 17:09                 ` Roman Zippel
2002-09-23  0:20                   ` Rusty Russell
2002-09-24 10:16                     ` Roman Zippel
2002-09-24 14:54                       ` Rusty Russell
2002-09-25  0:46                         ` Roman Zippel
2002-09-25  5:50                           ` Rusty Russell
2002-09-25 11:36                             ` Roman Zippel
2002-09-25 12:53                               ` Rusty Russell
2002-09-25 21:28                                 ` Roman Zippel
2002-09-26  1:49                                   ` Rusty Russell
2002-09-26 23:38                                     ` Roman Zippel
2002-09-27  1:11                                       ` Scott Murray
2002-09-27  1:34                                         ` Roman Zippel
2002-09-28  0:48                                           ` David Lang
2002-10-15  4:53                                       ` Rusty Russell

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=20020921033830.A32446@arizona.localdomain \
    --to=kevin@koconnor.net \
    --cc=greg@kroah.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
    --cc=zippel@linux-m68k.org \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).