Re: [PATCH] LSM file locking patch is bogus

Previous message: Matthew Wilcox: "[PATCH] LSM file locking patch is bogus"
In reply to: Matthew Wilcox: "[PATCH] LSM file locking patch is bogus"
Next in thread: Linus Torvalds: "Re: [PATCH] LSM file locking patch is bogus"
Reply: Linus Torvalds: "Re: [PATCH] LSM file locking patch is bogus"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

sarnoldat_private

On Sat, Jul 27, 2002 at 11:31:49PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>  - Remove third argument from file_lock security op.  Whether the lock is
>    blocking or not cannot make any difference to a security module!

Matthew, thanks for the patch. However, I'm not sure that the "blocking"
field can be removed without opening up some race conditions.

Please see the following analysis of the situation by Antony Edwards,
and make sure that removing the blocking field is still safe:

http://mail.wirex.com/pipermail/linux-security-module/2002-January/002568.html

(I'd be more than happy to forward the original email to anyone who
dislikes web browsers as much as I do. Please mail me privately if you
would like me to send you a copy.)

-- 
http://sardonix.org/