[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1204232711.24345.112.camel@moss-terrapins.epoch.ncsc.mil>
Date:	Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:05:11 -0500
From:	Dave Quigley <dpquigl@...ho.nsa.gov>
To:	"Josef 'Jeff' Sipek" <jeffpc@...efsipek.net>
Cc:	hch@...radead.org, viro@....linux.org.uk,
	trond.myklebust@....uio.no, bfields@...ldses.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/11] VFS: Add security label support to *notify
On Thu, 2008-02-28 at 16:15 -0500, Josef 'Jeff' Sipek wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 03:39:30PM -0500, Dave Quigley wrote:
> ...
> > > Alright...so, few things...
> > > 
> > > 1) why do you need the locked/unlocked versions?
> > > 
> > > 2) instead of passing a flag to a common function, why not have:
> > > 
> > > vfs_setxattr_locked(....)
> > > {
> > > 	// original code minus the lock/unlock calls
> > > }
> > > 
> > > vfs_setxattr(....)
> > > {
> > > 	mutex_lock(...);
> > > 	vfs_setxattr_locked(...);
> > > 	mutex_unlock(...);
> > > }
> > 
> > What we do and what you propose aren't logically equivalent. There is a
> > permission check inside vfs_setxattr before the mutex lock.
> 
> Ah, right. I didn't notice the @@ line...
> 
> Josef 'Jeff' Sipek.
> 
I'm compiling a test kernel with your proposed change to make sure it
doesn't deadlock. If it works then I'll go with your solution since its
less messy.
Dave
--
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
 
