From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] IMA: making i_readcount a first class inode citizen Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 09:24:04 +1100 Message-ID: <20101028222404.GG2715@dastard> References: <1288303325-9628-1-git-send-email-zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, hch@infradead.org, warthog9@kernel.org, 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: Mimi Zohar Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1288303325-9628-1-git-send-email-zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Sender: linux-security-module-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org 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. Why the wrapper functions and locking? Why not an atomic variable like i_writecount? Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com