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

[Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 21:12 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 06:02:01PM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > On Mon, 2010-10-25 at 14:41 -0400, Eric Paris wrote:
> > 
> > <snip>
> > 
> > > I believe that IBM is going to look into making i_readcount a first
> > > class citizen which can be used by both IMA and generic_setlease().
> > > Then people could say IMA had 0 per inode overhead   :)
> > 
> > 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 iget_readcount(). Its unclear whether this
> > call to increment i_readcount should be made earlier. 
> > 
> > The patch ordering is a bit redundant in order to leave removing the ifdef
> > around i_readcount until the last patch. The first three patches: defines 
> > iget/iput_readcount(), moves the IMA functionality in ima_counts_get() to
> > ima_file_check(), and removes the IMA imbalance code, simplifying IMA. The
> > last patch moves iget/iput_readcount() to the fs directory and 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, assuming
> > it can take the spin_lock, by doing something like:
> > 
> > -		if ((arg == F_RDLCK) && (atomic_read(&inode->i_writecount) > 0))
> > +
> > +		spin_lock(&inode->i_lock);
> > +		if ((arg == F_RDLCK) && (atomic_read(&inode->i_writecount) > 0)){
> > +			spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);
> >  			goto out;
> > -		if ((arg == F_WRLCK)
> > -		    && ((atomic_read(&dentry->d_count) > 1)
> > -			|| (atomic_read(&inode->i_count) > 1)))
> > +		}
> > +		if ((arg == F_WRLCK) && (inode->i_readcount > 1)) {
> > +			spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);
> >  			goto out;
> > +		}
> > +		spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);
> >  	}
> 
> Seems like an improvement.
> 
> It still leaves the race:
> 
> 	may_open calls lease_break, finds no lease
> 
> 			setlease checks read/writecount, finds 0,
> 			creates lease
> 
> 	__dentry_open bumps read/writecount
> 
> (Is there any reason we couldn't move the break_lease to after bumping
> read or write count?)
> 
> --b.

Right, like the ima_file_check(), which is after the __dentry_open().
Al, is it possible to move the break_lease() in may_open() to later?

thanks,

Mimi