[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c4f0d66f-7cad-c3b4-79a6-ced14b9c7cc8@tu-dortmund.de>
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2018 11:24:47 +0100
From: Alexander Lochmann <alexander.lochmann@...dortmund.de>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc: viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Horst Schirmeier <horst.schirmeier@...dortmund.de>,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix sync. in inode_has_no_xattr()
Am 05.12.18 um 16:32 schrieb Jan Kara:
>
> Thinking more about this I'm not sure if this is actually the right
> solution. Because for example the write(2) can set S_NOSEC flag wrongly
> when it would race with chmod adding SUID bit. So probably we rather need
> to acquire i_rwsem in blkdev_write_iter() if file does not have S_NOSEC set
> (we don't want to acquire it unconditionally as that would heavily impact
> scalability of block device writes).
>
> Honza
>
Trying to implement your suggestion, I'm not sure which inode to use:
In blkdev_write_iter() there is the "bd_inode = bdev_file_inode(file)".
file_remove_privs() uses "inode = file_inode(file)" as a parameter for
inode_has_no_xattr().
So, do file->f_mapping->host and f->f_inode refer to the identical inode?
- Alex
--
Technische Universität Dortmund
Alexander Lochmann PGP key: 0xBC3EF6FD
Otto-Hahn-Str. 16 phone: +49.231.7556141
D-44227 Dortmund fax: +49.231.7556116
http://ess.cs.tu-dortmund.de/Staff/al
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists