Re: [PATCH 0/4] IMA: making i_readcount a first class inode citizen

[Pavel Machek]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/