Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1765526AbYCEMsO (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Mar 2008 07:48:14 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757426AbYCEMr7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Mar 2008 07:47:59 -0500 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.171]:46545 "EHLO ug-out-1314.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755847AbYCEMr6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Mar 2008 07:47:58 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent:from; b=v2nQGsYR8RNKT5ElDSIK6NpTtIpXKKf+HEt4uaQBpWrw+z6p5LPLDTY1maJE6E0DQXFGRp0Fq86eWMiMhMLCHvGaVA+bqE+T0cpyAXsZiB3BP6aS+iqUAMHSm7/gb1YdkX6OEz42KW45LcL+JO1cERE/TkZBnVoTzK3gjGvT2z0= Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 14:44:45 +0200 To: Casey Schaufler Cc: Linus Torvalds , Stephen Smalley , James Morris , Eric Paris , LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH BUGFIX -rc3] Smack: Don't register smackfs if we're not loaded Message-ID: <20080305124445.GA19549@ubuntu> References: <521493.30745.qm@web36606.mail.mud.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <521493.30745.qm@web36606.mail.mud.yahoo.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15+20070412 (2007-04-11) From: "Ahmed S. Darwish" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1776 Lines: 54 On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 09:45:04AM -0800, Casey Schaufler wrote: > ----- Original Message ---- > > From: Linus Torvalds > > To: Ahmed S. Darwish > > Cc: Casey Schaufler ; LKML > > Sent: Tuesday, March 4, 2008 9:21:19 AM > > Subject: Re: [PATCH BUGFIX -rc3] Smack: Don't register smackfs if we're not loaded > > > > > > > > On Tue, 4 Mar 2008, Ahmed S. Darwish wrote: > > > > > > Smackfs initialization without an enabled Smack leads to > > > an early Oops that renders the system unusable. > > > > I really think this is bogus. Global enables like this are just wrong, and > > a sign that something else bad is going on. > > > > What is the oops? Why does it happen? ... > > One solution would be to tighten the smackfs code so that it > handles the uninitialized LSM case properly. > IMHO no smackfs code should ever execute if smack isn't loaded. This means catching it from the very fist step where it registers itself in init_smk_fs instead of doing several if(we're enabled) cases in the code path. The solution should be a _general_ solution, _not_ a SMACK one cause SELinux sufferes from exactly the same problem. a.k.a: LSMs need a scalable way to know if they're enabled that makes everyone happy ( especially Linus ;) ). Regads to all, -- "Better to light a candle, than curse the darkness" Ahmed S. Darwish Homepage: http://darwish.07.googlepages.com Blog: http://darwish-07.blogspot.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/