[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1501522933.602272.1058529880.6C4A2D98@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 13:42:13 -0400
From: Colin Walters <walters@...bum.org>
To: Colin Walters <walters@...bum.org>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
"linux-fsdevel" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] fs, xfs: introduce S_IOMAP_IMMUTABLE
On Mon, Jul 31, 2017, at 12:32 PM, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017, at 12:29 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> >
> > How is S_CONTENTS_IMMUTABLE different than S_IMMUTABLE?
>
> We still want the ability to make hardlinks.
Also of course, symmetrically, to unlink. If we used S_IMMUTABLE for /etc/sudoers,
it'd still be racy since one would have to transiently remove the flag in order
to replace it with a new version.
Related to this topic is the fact that S_IMMUTABLE is itself mutable; I
think once S_IMMUTABLE_CONTENTS is set, it would not be able to made
mutable again.
Also I just remembered that since then memfd_create() and more notably
fcntl(F_ADD_SEALS) landed - in fact it already has flags for what we want
here AFAICS. Your S_IOMAP_IMMUTABLE is fcntl(F_ADD_SEALS, F_SEAL_SHRINK | F_SEAL_GROW)
and mine just adds in F_SEAL_WRITE. I think there was some discussion
of the seals for persistent files when memfd_create() landed, but I can't
find it offhand.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists