[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTimvEAj2SL7RrwTdypGA_PYJcZyw8OMBGckWpVs7@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 15:46:04 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, hch@...radead.org,
warthog9@...nel.org, jmorris@...ei.org, kyle@...artin.ca,
hpa@...or.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mingo@...e.hu,
eparis@...hat.com, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] IMA: making i_readcount a first class inode citizen
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> Would making i_readcount atomic be enough in ima_rdwr_violation_check(),
> or would it still need to take the spin_lock? IMA needs guarantees
> that the i_readcount/i_writecount won't be updated in between.
If i_writecount is always updated under the i_lock, then the fix is
probably to make that one non-atomic instead. There's no point in
having an atomic that is always updated under a spinlock, that just
makes everything slower.
Regardless, I don't think i_readcount should be different from i_writecount.
Al? Comments?
Linus
--
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