Re: [PATCH v3 10/12] ima: defer calling __fput()

["Kasatkin, Dmitry" <dmitry.kasatkin@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Mimi Zohar <zohar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-03-22 at 14:22 +0000, Al Viro wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 02:54:15PM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
>> > If a file is closed before it is munmapped, __fput() is called with
>> > the mmap_sem taken.  With IMA-appraisal enabled, this results in an
>> > mmap_sem/i_mutex lockdep.  ima_defer_fput() increments the f_count
>> > to defer __fput() being called until after the mmap_sem is released.
>>
>> NAK.  It's far too heavy-weight for what's a very common path.  Worse,
>> it causes different locking conditions on IMA and non-IMA kernels and makes
>> bugs harder to spot.  Rejected with extreme prejudice; please, fix your
>> locking instead.
>
> Al, thanks for replying!  I realize you are very prejudiced against IMA,
> but have you taken a look at IMA-appraisal?  It probably would have been
> better if we used another name in order to avoid this prejudice, but
> unfortunately we didn't.  :(  IMA-appraisal is about enforcing file
> integrity.
>
>> BTW, you've missed several other places in mm/* doing fput(), so it wouldn't
>> be enough to paper over your problem anyway.
>>

In current solution, deferred call can be added directly to __fput and checking
if mmap_sem is locked.

>> Final fput() *can* happen under mmap_sem.  Period.
>
> I think I got that loud and clear; otherwise we wouldn't have come up
> with deferring the __fput().  We have a very real problem here - writing
> extended attributes requires taking the i_mutex.  I'm open to any
> suggestions.
>
> thanks,
>
> Mimi
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html