Re: [34/35] fs: call security_d_instantiate in d_obtain_alias V2

[Josef Bacik]

On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 05:24:56PM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> On 3/25/2011 5:04 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > 2.6.33-longterm review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let us know.
> >
> > ------------------
> >
> > From: Josef Bacik <josef@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > commit 24ff6663ccfdaf088dfa7acae489cb11ed4f43c4 upstream.
> >
> > While trying to track down some NFS problems with BTRFS, I kept noticing I was
> > getting -EACCESS for no apparent reason.  Eric Paris and printk() helped me
> > figure out that it was SELinux that was giving me grief, with the following
> > denial
> >
> > type=AVC msg=audit(1290013638.413:95): avc:  denied  { 0x800000 } for  pid=1772
> > comm="nfsd" name="" dev=sda1 ino=256 scontext=system_u:system_r:kernel_t:s0
> > tcontext=system_u:object_r:unlabeled_t:s0 tclass=file
> >
> > Turns out this is because in d_obtain_alias if we can't find an alias we create
> > one and do all the normal instantiation stuff, but we don't do the
> > security_d_instantiate.
> >
> > Usually we are protected from getting a hashed dentry that hasn't yet run
> > security_d_instantiate() by the parent's i_mutex, but obviously this isn't an
> > option there, so in order to deal with the case that a second thread comes in
> > and finds our new dentry before we get to run security_d_instantiate(), we go
> > ahead and call it if we find a dentry already.  Eric assures me that this is ok
> > as the code checks to see if the dentry has been initialized already so calling
> > security_d_instantiate() against the same dentry multiple times is ok.  With
> > this patch I'm no longer getting errant -EACCESS values.
> 
> Not to be a bother, but did you try this with Smack as well as SELinux?
> Smack should be fine with the change, but if you're not going to try
> Smack I need to know.
> 

I only tested SELinux since it's on by default in fedora.  Thanks,

Josef
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/