Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 10 May 2022 12:50:40 -0400 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v12 01/26] securityfs: rework dentry creation | From | Stefan Berger <> |
| |
On 5/10/22 06:25, Christian Brauner wrote: > On Mon, May 09, 2022 at 02:54:14PM -0500, Serge Hallyn wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 10:06:08AM -0400, Stefan Berger wrote: >>> From: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org> >>> >>> When securityfs creates a new file or directory via >>> securityfs_create_dentry() it will take an additional reference on the >>> newly created dentry after it has attached the new inode to the new >>> dentry and added it to the hashqueues. >>> If we contrast this with debugfs which has the same underlying logic as >>> securityfs. It uses a similar pairing as securityfs. Where securityfs >>> has the securityfs_create_dentry() and securityfs_remove() pairing, >>> debugfs has the __debugfs_create_file() and debugfs_remove() pairing. >>> >>> In contrast to securityfs, debugfs doesn't take an additional reference >>> on the newly created dentry in __debugfs_create_file() which would need >>> to be put in debugfs_remove(). >>> >>> The additional dget() isn't a problem per se. In the current >>> implementation of securityfs each created dentry pins the filesystem via >> >> Is 'via' an extra word here or is there a missing word? >> >> I'll delay the rest of my response as the missing word may answer my >> remaining question :) > > It can be both. It should either be removed or it should be followed by > "securityfs_create_dentry()". securityfs_create_dentry() takes two
I am adding "securityfs_create_dentry()" to the text.
| |