lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Nov]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v1.2 0/5] IMA: making i_readcount a first class inode citizen
    From
    Date
    On Tue, 2010-11-02 at 13:08 -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
    > Changelog:
    > - renamed iget/iput_readcount to i_readcount_inc/dec (Dave Chinner's suggestion)
    > - finished cleaning up the locking, so that: (based on Eric's comment.)
    > - i_lock is not required
    > - i_mutex is taken when making measurement decisions to prevent
    > file metadata(eg. permissions, xattr) changing from under it.
    > - iint->mutex is taken when accessing/modifying the iint structure.
    > - Based on the previous posting discussion, i_readcount is now defined as
    > atomic.
    >
    > This patchset separates the incrementing/decrementing of the i_readcount,
    > in the VFS layer, from other IMA functionality, by replacing the current
    > ima_counts_get() call with i_readcount_inc(). Its unclear whether this
    > call to increment i_readcount should be made earlier, like i_writecount.
    >
    > The patch ordering is a bit redundant in order to leave removing the ifdef
    > around i_readcount until the last patch. The first four patches: redefines
    > i_readcount as atomic, defines i_readcount_inc/dec(), moves the IMA
    > functionality in ima_counts_get() to ima_file_check(), and removes the
    > IMA imbalance code, simplifying IMA. The last patch removes the ifdef
    > around i_readcount, making i_readcount into a "first class inode citizen".
    >
    > The generic_setlease code could then take advantage of i_readcount.
    >
    > Mimi
    > Mimi Zohar (5):
    > IMA: convert i_readcount to atomic
    > IMA: define readcount functions
    > IMA: maintain i_readcount in the VFS layer
    > IMA: remove IMA imbalance checking
    > IMA: making i_readcount a first class inode citizen


    Ack on patches 1-4. Patch 5 I'm not so sure about. As long as IMA is
    the only user I don't think we really want to unconditionally compile
    i_readcount in. I say we either leave it wrapped in CONFIG_IMA until
    there is a second user. Then we either unconditionally compile it in,
    or we wrap it in something that either user can select in the Kconfig.

    I'll let others voice their opinion.

    -Eric



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2010-11-02 19:07    [W:2.711 / U:0.428 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site