From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mimi Zohar Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] IMA: making i_readcount a first class inode citizen Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2010 07:08:06 -0400 Message-ID: <1288955286.3135.9.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1288303325-9628-1-git-send-email-zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20101105011227.GB4320@fieldses.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, hch@infradead.org, warthog9@kernel.org, david@fromorbit.com, jmorris@namei.org, kyle@mcmartin.ca, hpa@zytor.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, mingo@elte.hu, eparis@redhat.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, Matthew Wilcox To: "J. Bruce Fields" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20101105011227.GB4320@fieldses.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org 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: > > > > > > > > > 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