On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 4:49 PM Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
[off-list ref] wrote:

On 8/24/20 3:18 PM, Paul Moore wrote:

Hi Paul,

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

Is Ondrej's re-try approach I need to use to workaround policy reload issue?

No, I think perhaps we should move the mutex to selinux_state instead
of selinux_fs_info.  selinux_fs_info has a pointer to selinux_state so
it can then use it indirectly.  Note that your patches are going to
conflict with other ongoing work in the selinux next branch that is
refactoring policy load and converting the policy rwlock to RCU.

Yeah, and I'm experimenting with a patch on top of Stephen's RCU work
that would allow you to do this in a straightforward way without even
messing with the fsi->mutex. My patch may or may not be eventually
committed, but either way I'd recommend holding off on this for a
while until the dust settles around the RCU conversion.

I can make the SELinux\IMA changes in "selinux next branch" taking
dependencies on Stephen's patches + relevant IMA patches.

I know it can be frustrating to hear what I'm about to say, but the
best option is probably just to wait a little to let things settle in
the SELinux -next branch.  There is a lot of stuff going on right now
with patches flooding in (at least "flooding" from a SELinux kernel
development perspective) and we/I've haven't gotten through all of
them yet.

Could you please let me know when the current set of changes in SELinux
next branch would be completed and be ready to take new changes?

I mean, roughly - would it be a month from now or you expect that to
take longer?

I can't speak for Paul but I would expect it to be sooner rather than
later. Ondrej has some follow ups on top of my policy rcu conversion
but then it should be good to go.