From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE460C43603 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 22:58:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B40B0214D8 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 22:58:00 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.microsoft.com header.i=@linux.microsoft.com header.b="ZK2aaBtq" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1731284AbfLLW57 (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Dec 2019 17:57:59 -0500 Received: from linux.microsoft.com ([13.77.154.182]:40726 "EHLO linux.microsoft.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1731131AbfLLW57 (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Dec 2019 17:57:59 -0500 Received: from [10.137.112.111] (unknown [131.107.147.111]) by linux.microsoft.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7F3D020B7187; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 14:57:58 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 linux.microsoft.com 7F3D020B7187 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.microsoft.com; s=default; t=1576191478; bh=IaY9QfPYlGX8LBGy1XQmQtegmcwNOQejtgEwB7A4BKM=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=ZK2aaBtqm/DdZi7fhP+jIagujLRcrIzUhHkusgPASPWi+e45zhO4QcV4EsrQnGWgG cEVGInMrEE2PBMHOKGGNS/Hm6PfK2zTv6ao/pNu89hUpnw2783+PXhtB2SnSf+jXlV FsTlSGsPyE0ttPj7kLXTEPBqZyXR+usBEscHngN0= Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] IMA: Define workqueue for early boot "key" measurements To: Mimi Zohar , linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org Cc: eric.snowberg@oracle.com, dhowells@redhat.com, mathew.j.martineau@linux.intel.com, matthewgarrett@google.com, sashal@kernel.org, jamorris@linux.microsoft.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, keyrings@vger.kernel.org References: <20191211185116.2740-1-nramas@linux.microsoft.com> <20191211185116.2740-2-nramas@linux.microsoft.com> <1576138743.4579.147.camel@linux.ibm.com> <0cc15a43-8e1b-9819-33fe-8325068f8df2@linux.microsoft.com> <1576185189.4579.165.camel@linux.ibm.com> <1576191258.4579.181.camel@linux.ibm.com> From: Lakshmi Ramasubramanian Message-ID: Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 14:58:22 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1576191258.4579.181.camel@linux.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 12/12/2019 2:54 PM, Mimi Zohar wrote: >> >> I can also move the setting of ima_process_key flag inside the lock >> along with the above change. > > My concern is with the last sentence "Since ima_process_keys is set to > true above, any new key will be processed immediately and not queued." >   It's unlikely, but possible, that a second process will wait for the > ima_keys_mutex.  Either we remove this sentence or move setting > ima_process_keys to after taking the lock. > > Mimi Sure - i'll move the setting of ima_process_keys flag inside the lock and define the flag as static. Will keep the comment as is. thanks, -lakshmi