Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 02:03:10 +1100 (EST)
From: James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>
To: "Ahmed S. Darwish" <darwish.07@gmail.com>
cc: Chris Wright <chrisw@sous-sol.org>, Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov>,
       Eric Paris <eparis@parisplace.org>,
       Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>,
       Paul Moore <paul.moore@hp.com>, Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@sw.ru>,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
       Linus <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
       LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       LSM-ML <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v8 -rc3] Security: Introduce security= boot parameter
In-Reply-To: <1865922a0803060632kb63405fj3d255472fb2e555f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <Xine.LNX.4.64.0803070159280.8501@us.intercode.com.au>
References: <20080306121913.GA8506@ubuntu>  <Xine.LNX.4.64.0803070025440.16767@us.intercode.com.au>
 <1865922a0803060632kb63405fj3d255472fb2e555f@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 911
Lines: 27

On Thu, 6 Mar 2008, Ahmed S. Darwish wrote:

> Would you mind answering my confusions below so I can do the change
> with good understanding ?
> 
> I see preempt_disable() before calling security and vfs_caches init,
> but what will prevent two processors/cores from executing
> security_module_enable() concurrently (thus possibly corrupting
> chosen_lsm) ?
> security_module_enable() is also now used in __init init_smk_fs().
> 
> Or the init path got executed serially ?

The init phase only runs on one cpu, see the lock_kernel() in 
kernel_init(), from which context the initcalls are eventually run in 
sequence.


- James
-- 
James Morris
<jmorris@namei.org>
--
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/