mirror of
https://mirrors.bfsu.edu.cn/git/linux.git
synced 2024-09-22 22:11:38 +08:00
ceffec5541
Dave Chinner wrote: > Yes, because you have no idea what the calling context is except > for the fact that is from somewhere inside filesystem code and the > filesystem could be holding locks. Therefore, GFP_NOFS is really the > only really safe way to allocate memory here. I see. Thank you. I'm not sure, but can call trace happen where somewhere inside network filesystem or stackable filesystem code with locks held invokes operations that involves GFP_KENREL memory allocation outside that filesystem? ---------- [PATCH] SMACK: Fix incorrect GFP_KERNEL usage. new_inode_smack() which can be called from smack_inode_alloc_security() needs to use GFP_NOFS like SELinux's inode_alloc_security() does, for security_inode_alloc() is called from inode_init_always() and inode_init_always() is called from xfs_inode_alloc() which is using GFP_NOFS. smack_inode_init_security() needs to use GFP_NOFS like selinux_inode_init_security() does, for initxattrs() callback function (e.g. btrfs_initxattrs()) which is called from security_inode_init_security() is using GFP_NOFS. smack_audit_rule_match() needs to use GFP_ATOMIC, for security_audit_rule_match() can be called from audit_filter_user_rules() and audit_filter_user_rules() is called from audit_filter_user() with RCU read lock held. Signed-off-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> Signed-off-by: Casey Schaufler <cschaufler@cschaufler-intel.(none)> |
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| apparmor | ||
| integrity | ||
| keys | ||
| selinux | ||
| smack | ||
| tomoyo | ||
| yama | ||
| capability.c | ||
| commoncap.c | ||
| device_cgroup.c | ||
| inode.c | ||
| Kconfig | ||
| lsm_audit.c | ||
| Makefile | ||
| min_addr.c | ||
| security.c | ||