[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <84144f020607270833v4c981d00w8e3e643406aea7a@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 18:33:14 +0300
From: "Pekka Enberg" <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To: "Alan Cox" <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
akpm@...l.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, tytso@....edu,
tigran@...itas.com
Subject: Re: Re: [RFC/PATCH] revoke/frevoke system calls V2
On 7/27/06, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> That should be three I think. frevoke and revoke should not return until
> all the existing outstanding is dead. For devices that means we need to
> wake up the device where possible and really suggests we need a device
> ->revoke method. TTY devices need this to allow us to re-implement
> vhangup in terms of revoke. Other devices devices are not all
> sufficiently secure without this check. Some may also want to use this
> hook to ensure that any security context is dead (eg cached crypto
> keys).
Don't device drivers already do that for f_ops->flush (filp_close) and
vm_ops->close (munmap)? What revoke and frevoke do is basically
unmap/fsync/close on all the open file descriptors.
Pekka
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists