[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101020031504.GA18581@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 04:15:04 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, hch@...radead.org, zohar@...ibm.com,
warthog9@...nel.org, david@...morbit.com, jmorris@...ei.org,
kyle@...artin.ca, hpa@...or.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
mingo@...e.hu
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] IMA: move read/write counters into struct inode
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 01:11:33PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> Hm. Sounds like the same question that the file leases code needs
> answered. The important difference is that the leases code can just
> refuse to set a lease on inodes with multiple dentries.
>
> While my mind's on it ... Al, is this code even close to correct?
>
> if ((arg == F_RDLCK) && (atomic_read(&inode->i_writecount) > 0))
> goto out;
> if ((arg == F_WRLCK)
> && ((atomic_read(&dentry->d_count) > 1)
> || (atomic_read(&inode->i_count) > 1)))
> goto out;
No. This is complete junk; note that e.g. ls -lR will disrupt it, since
lstat(2) will bump dentry refcount. The first part is more or less OK;
the second makes no sense.
What is it trying to do? Note that the first part also doesn't make a lot
of sense, since you could be acquiring a write reference *right* *now*,
just as that check passes. And you could finish getting it before you get
to do anything else in generic_setlease().
--
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