etienne wrote:
quoted text
> diff --git a/security/smack/smack_access.c b/security/smack/smack_access.c
> index 2e0b83e..3dc312d 100644
> --- a/security/smack/smack_access.c
> +++ b/security/smack/smack_access.c
> @@ -87,7 +87,6 @@ static u32 smack_next_secid = 10;
>  int smk_access(char *subject_label, char *object_label, int request)
>  {
>  	u32 may = MAY_NOT;
> -	struct smk_list_entry *sp;
>  	struct smack_rule *srp;
>  
>  	/*
> @@ -139,8 +138,8 @@ int smk_access(char *subject_label, char *object_label, int request)
>  	 * access (e.g. read is included in readwrite) it's
>  	 * good.
>  	 */
> -	for (sp = smack_list; sp != NULL; sp = sp->smk_next) {
> -		srp = &sp->smk_rule;
> +
> +	list_for_each_entry(srp, &smack_rule_list, list) {
>  
>  		if (srp->smk_subject == subject_label ||
>  		    strcmp(srp->smk_subject, subject_label) == 0) {

Use of standard doubly linked list requires a lock, doesn't it?
What lock protects smack_rule_list?
--
unsubscribe notice
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/