From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Al Viro Subject: Re: [PATCH resend] audit: fix mark refcounting Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 22:55:17 +0000 Message-ID: <20111215225517.GT2203@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <87obwof06x.fsf@tucsk.pomaz.szeredi.hu> <87ipljcjc2.fsf@tucsk.pomaz.szeredi.hu> <20111215084050.GQ2203@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <87fwgmjjr9.fsf@tucsk.pomaz.szeredi.hu> <87aa6ujjf6.fsf@tucsk.pomaz.szeredi.hu> <20111215200631.GA2379@Neptun> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Miklos Szeredi , Linus Torvalds , Eric Paris , akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Lino Sanfilippo Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20111215200631.GA2379@Neptun> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 09:06:31PM +0100, Lino Sanfilippo wrote: > On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 10:03:41AM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > > > + audit_get_parent(parent); > > fsnotify_destroy_mark(&parent->mark); > > + audit_put_parent(parent); > > Hi, > > What about taking an extra ref on an inode mark in send_to_group() > before we call handle_event()? > So we dont have to handle the cases in which a mark is destroyed > explicitly... The thing is, on most of the method calls we won't need that at all. And it costs quite a bit, so I'm afraid that this variant is the way to go. Yes, it would be nicer to do that in caller, but... Dunno... Neither instance actually touches the mark after that destroy_mark and we have very few of those guys (fortunately). So removing this BUG_ON() instead might be the right thing to do.