From: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz>
To: Bernd Schubert <bschubert@ddn.com>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, bernd.schubert@fastmail.fm,
miklos@szeredi.hu, dsingh@ddn.com,
Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>,
linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org,
Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Use exclusive lock for file_remove_privs
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2023 20:02:59 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230905180259.GG14420@twin.jikos.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230831112431.2998368-1-bschubert@ddn.com>
On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 01:24:29PM +0200, Bernd Schubert wrote:
> While adding shared direct IO write locks to fuse Miklos noticed
> that file_remove_privs() needs an exclusive lock. I then
> noticed that btrfs actually has the same issue as I had in my patch,
> it was calling into that function with a shared lock.
> This series adds a new exported function file_needs_remove_privs(),
> which used by the follow up btrfs patch and will be used by the
> DIO code path in fuse as well. If that function returns any mask
> the shared lock needs to be dropped and replaced by the exclusive
> variant.
>
> Note: Compilation tested only.
The fix makes sense, there should be no noticeable performance impact,
basically the same check is done in the newly exported helper for the
IS_NOSEC bit. I can give it a test locally for the default case, I'm
not sure if we have specific tests for the security layers in fstests.
Regarding merge, I can take the two patches via btrfs tree or can wait
until the export is present in Linus' tree in case FUSE needs it
independently.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-09-05 18:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-08-31 11:24 [PATCH v2 0/2] Use exclusive lock for file_remove_privs Bernd Schubert
2023-08-31 11:24 ` [PATCH 1/2] fs: Add and export file_needs_remove_privs Bernd Schubert
2023-08-31 13:16 ` Christian Brauner
2023-08-31 13:40 ` Christian Brauner
2023-08-31 14:17 ` Bernd Schubert
2023-09-01 12:50 ` Christian Brauner
2023-08-31 11:24 ` [PATCH 2/2] btrfs: file_remove_privs needs an exclusive lock Bernd Schubert
2023-09-05 18:02 ` David Sterba [this message]
2023-09-06 14:43 ` [PATCH v2 0/2] Use exclusive lock for file_remove_privs Christian Brauner
2023-09-06 14:51 ` Bernd Schubert
2023-09-06 15:07 ` Christian Brauner
2023-09-07 14:00 ` David Sterba
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20230905180259.GG14420@twin.jikos.cz \
--to=dsterba@suse.cz \
--cc=bernd.schubert@fastmail.fm \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=bschubert@ddn.com \
--cc=dsingh@ddn.com \
--cc=josef@toxicpanda.com \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=miklos@szeredi.hu \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox