[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101106104451.GC11831@ucw.cz>
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 11:44:52 +0100
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To: Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.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,
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 2010-10-28 18:45:07, Eric Paris wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-10-28 at 15:29 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Why the wrapper functions and locking? Why not an atomic variable like
> > > i_writecount?
> >
> > Indeed. With moving this more into the VFS, let's just make sure it
> > looks like i_writecount as much as possible.
>
> My thought was that the IMA read/write checks should happen AFTER the
> i_writecount and i_readcount counters were updated. Thus even if we
> raced with another task we can rest assured that the other task would
> catch the situation we missed....
Is not that too late? The other process may have already acted on that data...
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
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