[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120322150945.GW6589@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 15:09:45 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
David Safford <safford@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Dmitry Kasatkin <dmitry.kasatkin@...el.com>,
Matt Helsley <matt.helsley@...il.com>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 10/12] ima: defer calling __fput()
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 10:53:04AM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > BTW, you've missed several other places in mm/* doing fput(), so it wouldn't
> > be enough to paper over your problem anyway.
> >
> > Final fput() *can* happen under mmap_sem. Period.
>
> I think I got that loud and clear; otherwise we wouldn't have come up
> with deferring the __fput(). We have a very real problem here - writing
> extended attributes requires taking the i_mutex.
Don't do it, then? If you _must_ write to xattr on final fput, I'd suggest
starting to figure out if xattr needs its protection to be ->i_mutex - it
might make sense to introduce a separate mutex for xattr crap. Or not - I'm
not familiar enough with the guts of xattr handling in individual filesystems
to tell if that would work (e.g. if it would need unpleasant changes to
->setattr() instances)...
--
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