diff options
author | Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@hp.com> | 2014-06-23 11:28:51 -0400 |
---|---|---|
committer | Paul Moore <pmoore@redhat.com> | 2014-06-23 16:52:55 -0400 |
commit | f31e799459659ae88c341aeac16a8a5efb1271d4 (patch) | |
tree | 912cc7f6dd3350c32501a344cf438f7ec2269c72 /Documentation/x86/00-INDEX | |
parent | 6e51f9cbfa04a92b40e7f9c1e76c8ecbff534a22 (diff) | |
download | op-kernel-dev-f31e799459659ae88c341aeac16a8a5efb1271d4.zip op-kernel-dev-f31e799459659ae88c341aeac16a8a5efb1271d4.tar.gz |
selinux: no recursive read_lock of policy_rwlock in security_genfs_sid()
With the introduction of fair queued rwlock, recursive read_lock()
may hang the offending process if there is a write_lock() somewhere
in between.
With recursive read_lock checking enabled, the following error was
reported:
=============================================
[ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
3.16.0-rc1 #2 Tainted: G E
---------------------------------------------
load_policy/708 is trying to acquire lock:
(policy_rwlock){.+.+..}, at: [<ffffffff8125b32a>]
security_genfs_sid+0x3a/0x170
but task is already holding lock:
(policy_rwlock){.+.+..}, at: [<ffffffff8125b48c>]
security_fs_use+0x2c/0x110
other info that might help us debug this:
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0
----
lock(policy_rwlock);
lock(policy_rwlock);
This patch fixes the occurrence of recursive read_lock() of
policy_rwlock by adding a helper function __security_genfs_sid()
which requires caller to take the lock before calling it. The
security_fs_use() was then modified to call the new helper function.
Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@hp.com>
Acked-by: Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov>
Signed-off-by: Paul Moore <pmoore@redhat.com>
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation/x86/00-INDEX')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions