On 7/22/25 07:24, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2025 10:04:13 -0400
Steven Rostedt <[email protected]> wrote:
Booting latest linux-next, I triggered this warning.
Looks to be associated to apparmor. Was there an allocated spinlock not
initialized properly?
Yeah, you don't initialize the spin lock. Is there a reason you commented
out the spin lock initialization in 88fec3526e841 ("apparmor: make sure
unix socket labeling is correctly updated.")?
Ooops yes sorry, I split out the lock here to a second patch so I could do
some testing around the impact the lock would have against the unix socket
case. That patch was supposed to get folded back in, but it looks like
I picked the wrong sha (from the branch with it not folded in) into the next
tree.
I get that fixed asap
--- a/security/apparmor/lsm.c
+++ b/security/apparmor/lsm.c
@@ -508,7 +508,6 @@ static int apparmor_file_alloc_security(struct file *file)
struct aa_file_ctx *ctx = file_ctx(file);
struct aa_label *label = begin_current_label_crit_section();
- spin_lock_init(&ctx->lock);
rcu_assign_pointer(ctx->label, aa_get_label(label));
end_current_label_crit_section(label);
return 0;
@@ -1076,12 +1075,29 @@ static int apparmor_userns_create(const struct cred
*cred)
return error;
}
+static int apparmor_sk_alloc_security(struct sock *sk, int family, gfp_t gfp)
+{
+ struct aa_sk_ctx *ctx = aa_sock(sk);
+ struct aa_label *label;
+ bool needput;
+
+ label = __begin_current_label_crit_section(&needput);
+ //spin_lock_init(&ctx->lock);
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+ rcu_assign_pointer(ctx->label, aa_get_label(label));
+ rcu_assign_pointer(ctx->peer, NULL);
+ rcu_assign_pointer(ctx->peer_lastupdate, NULL);
+ __end_current_label_crit_section(label, needput);
+ return 0;
+}
-- Steve
