Re: [PATCH] Version 8 (2.6.23) Smack: Simplified Mandatory Access Control Kernel

2007-10-19 Thread Ahmed S. Darwish
On 10/18/07, Al Viro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 05:57:05AM +0100, Al Viro wrote: On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 09:17:40PM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote: Think what happens if CPU1 adds to list and CPU2 sees write to smk_known *before* it sees write to -smk_next. We see a

Re: [PATCH] Version 8 (2.6.23) Smack: Simplified Mandatory Access Control Kernel

2007-10-18 Thread Casey Schaufler
--- Al Viro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 09:17:40PM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote: At random: +static int smack_netlabel(struct sock *sk) +{ + static int initialized; + struct socket_smack *ssp = sk-sk_security; + struct netlbl_lsm_secattr secattr; +

Re: [PATCH] Version 8 (2.6.23) Smack: Simplified Mandatory Access Control Kernel

2007-10-17 Thread Al Viro
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 09:17:40PM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote: At random: +static int smack_netlabel(struct sock *sk) +{ + static int initialized; + struct socket_smack *ssp = sk-sk_security; + struct netlbl_lsm_secattr secattr; + int rc = 0; + + if (!initialized) {

Re: [PATCH] Version 8 (2.6.23) Smack: Simplified Mandatory Access Control Kernel

2007-10-17 Thread Al Viro
On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 05:57:05AM +0100, Al Viro wrote: On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 09:17:40PM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote: Think what happens if CPU1 adds to list and CPU2 sees write to smk_known *before* it sees write to -smk_next. We see a single-element list and we'll be lucky if that