linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 3/8] move mnt_want_write() out of may

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <E1IcRMo-0000Qm-00@dorka.pomaz.szeredi.hu>
Date:	Mon, 01 Oct 2007 21:55:46 +0200
From:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To:	haveblue@...ibm.com
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hch@...radead.org, miklos@...redi.hu,
	haveblue@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 3/8] move mnt_want_write() out of may_open()

> @@ -1687,10 +1679,8 @@ static int open_namei_create(struct name
>  	struct dentry *dir = nd->dentry;
>  
>  	/*
> -	 * This ensures that the mnt stays writable
> -	 * over the vfs_create() call to may_open(),
> -	 * which takes a more persistent
> -	 * mnt_want_write().
> +	 * This mnt_want_write() is potentially persistent,
> +	 * and balanced in __fput()
>  	 */
>  	error = mnt_want_write(nd->mnt);
>  	if (error) {

I'm confused: isn't it the mnt_want_write() in __dentry_open(), that
is balanced in __fput()?

Miklos
-
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/