[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0607271858380.6287@sbz-30.cs.Helsinki.FI>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 19:01:55 +0300 (EEST)
From: Pekka J 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
Ar Iau, 2006-07-27 am 18:33 +0300, ysgrifennodd Pekka Enberg:
> > Don't device drivers already do that for f_ops->flush (filp_close) and
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Alan Cox wrote:
> ->flush is called when each closing occurs.
Yes revoke calls it too, but is that sufficient, or do we need ->revoke?
Ar Iau, 2006-07-27 am 18:33 +0300, ysgrifennodd Pekka Enberg:
> > vm_ops->close (munmap)? What revoke and frevoke do is basically
> > unmap/fsync/close on all the open file descriptors.
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Alan Cox wrote:
> What happens if an app is already blocked on a read when you do a
> revoke ? The nasty case answer could be "it completes later on and
> returns the users captured password"
Ouch. You are right. I need to stick that invalidate_inode_pages2
back in there. The do_fsync call takes care of writes only, obviously.
Thanks!
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