[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170928135416.GA30859@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 06:54:16 -0700
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] fs: define new read_iter rwf flag
On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 08:39:31AM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> Writing extended attributes requires exclusively taking the i_rwsem
> lock. To synchronize the file hash calculation and writing the file
> hash as security.ima xattr, IMA-appraisal takes the i_rwsem lock
> exclusively before calculating the file hash. (Once the file hash
> is calculated, the result is cached. Taking the lock exclusively
> prevents calculating the file hash multiple times.)
>
> Some filesystems have recently replaced their filesystem dependent
> lock with the global i_rwsem to read a file. As a result, when IMA
> attempts to calculate the file hash, reading the file attempts to
> take the i_rwsem again.
>
> To resolve this problem, this patch defines a new read_iter flag
> named "rwf" to indicate that the i_rwsem has already been taken
> exclusively. Subsequent patches will set or test the "rwf" flag.
I don't like adding a bool parameter everywhere. Why not add a flag
to the kiocb ki_flags?
#define IOCB_RWSEM_HELD (1 << 8)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists