aboutsummaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
path: root/security
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorPavel Emelyanov <xemul@openvz.org>2008-07-25 01:47:07 -0700
committerLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>2008-07-25 10:53:37 -0700
commit4efd1a1b2f09a4b746dd9dc057986c6dadcb1317 (patch)
tree048b7c286be2f17efce9b3482d9618cd150ee3f7 /security
parente885dcde75685e09f23cffae1f6d5169c105b8a0 (diff)
downloadmrst-s0i3-test-4efd1a1b2f09a4b746dd9dc057986c6dadcb1317.tar.gz
mrst-s0i3-test-4efd1a1b2f09a4b746dd9dc057986c6dadcb1317.tar.xz
mrst-s0i3-test-4efd1a1b2f09a4b746dd9dc057986c6dadcb1317.zip
devcgroup: relax white-list protection down to RCU
Currently this list is protected with a simple spinlock, even for reading from one. This is OK, but can be better. Actually I want it to be better very much, since after replacing the OpenVZ device permissions engine with the cgroup-based one I noticed, that we set 12 default device permissions for each newly created container (for /dev/null, full, terminals, ect devices), and people sometimes have up to 20 perms more, so traversing the ~30-40 elements list under a spinlock doesn't seem very good. Here's the RCU protection for white-list - dev_whitelist_item-s are added and removed under the devcg->lock, but are looked up in permissions checking under the rcu_read_lock. Signed-off-by: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@openvz.org> Acked-by: Serge Hallyn <serue@us.ibm.com> Cc: Balbir Singh <balbir@in.ibm.com> Cc: Paul Menage <menage@google.com> Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@us.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Diffstat (limited to 'security')
-rw-r--r--security/device_cgroup.c35
1 files changed, 22 insertions, 13 deletions
diff --git a/security/device_cgroup.c b/security/device_cgroup.c
index 236fffa9d05..9da3532726f 100644
--- a/security/device_cgroup.c
+++ b/security/device_cgroup.c
@@ -41,6 +41,7 @@ struct dev_whitelist_item {
short type;
short access;
struct list_head list;
+ struct rcu_head rcu;
};
struct dev_cgroup {
@@ -133,11 +134,19 @@ static int dev_whitelist_add(struct dev_cgroup *dev_cgroup,
}
if (whcopy != NULL)
- list_add_tail(&whcopy->list, &dev_cgroup->whitelist);
+ list_add_tail_rcu(&whcopy->list, &dev_cgroup->whitelist);
spin_unlock(&dev_cgroup->lock);
return 0;
}
+static void whitelist_item_free(struct rcu_head *rcu)
+{
+ struct dev_whitelist_item *item;
+
+ item = container_of(rcu, struct dev_whitelist_item, rcu);
+ kfree(item);
+}
+
/*
* called under cgroup_lock()
* since the list is visible to other tasks, we need the spinlock also
@@ -161,8 +170,8 @@ static void dev_whitelist_rm(struct dev_cgroup *dev_cgroup,
remove:
walk->access &= ~wh->access;
if (!walk->access) {
- list_del(&walk->list);
- kfree(walk);
+ list_del_rcu(&walk->list);
+ call_rcu(&walk->rcu, whitelist_item_free);
}
}
spin_unlock(&dev_cgroup->lock);
@@ -269,15 +278,15 @@ static int devcgroup_seq_read(struct cgroup *cgroup, struct cftype *cft,
struct dev_whitelist_item *wh;
char maj[MAJMINLEN], min[MAJMINLEN], acc[ACCLEN];
- spin_lock(&devcgroup->lock);
- list_for_each_entry(wh, &devcgroup->whitelist, list) {
+ rcu_read_lock();
+ list_for_each_entry_rcu(wh, &devcgroup->whitelist, list) {
set_access(acc, wh->access);
set_majmin(maj, wh->major);
set_majmin(min, wh->minor);
seq_printf(m, "%c %s:%s %s\n", type_to_char(wh->type),
maj, min, acc);
}
- spin_unlock(&devcgroup->lock);
+ rcu_read_unlock();
return 0;
}
@@ -510,8 +519,8 @@ int devcgroup_inode_permission(struct inode *inode, int mask)
if (!dev_cgroup)
return 0;
- spin_lock(&dev_cgroup->lock);
- list_for_each_entry(wh, &dev_cgroup->whitelist, list) {
+ rcu_read_lock();
+ list_for_each_entry_rcu(wh, &dev_cgroup->whitelist, list) {
if (wh->type & DEV_ALL)
goto acc_check;
if ((wh->type & DEV_BLOCK) && !S_ISBLK(inode->i_mode))
@@ -527,10 +536,10 @@ acc_check:
continue;
if ((mask & MAY_READ) && !(wh->access & ACC_READ))
continue;
- spin_unlock(&dev_cgroup->lock);
+ rcu_read_unlock();
return 0;
}
- spin_unlock(&dev_cgroup->lock);
+ rcu_read_unlock();
return -EPERM;
}
@@ -545,7 +554,7 @@ int devcgroup_inode_mknod(int mode, dev_t dev)
if (!dev_cgroup)
return 0;
- spin_lock(&dev_cgroup->lock);
+ rcu_read_lock();
list_for_each_entry(wh, &dev_cgroup->whitelist, list) {
if (wh->type & DEV_ALL)
goto acc_check;
@@ -560,9 +569,9 @@ int devcgroup_inode_mknod(int mode, dev_t dev)
acc_check:
if (!(wh->access & ACC_MKNOD))
continue;
- spin_unlock(&dev_cgroup->lock);
+ rcu_read_unlock();
return 0;
}
- spin_unlock(&dev_cgroup->lock);
+ rcu_read_unlock();
return -EPERM;
}