From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 10/12] ima: defer calling __fput()
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 15:09:45 +0000
Message-ID: <20120322150945.GW6589@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
References: <1332356057-3356-1-git-send-email-zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <1332356057-3356-11-git-send-email-zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20120322142212.GV6589@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <1332427986.2218.53.camel@falcor>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	David Safford <safford@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Dmitry Kasatkin <dmitry.kasatkin@intel.com>,
	Matt Helsley <matt.helsley@gmail.com>,
	Mimi Zohar <zohar@us.ibm.com>
To: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1332427986.2218.53.camel@falcor>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 10:53:04AM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > BTW, you've missed several other places in mm/* doing fput(), so it wouldn't
> > be enough to paper over your problem anyway.
> > 
> > Final fput() *can* happen under mmap_sem.  Period.
> 
> I think I got that loud and clear; otherwise we wouldn't have come up
> with deferring the __fput().  We have a very real problem here - writing
> extended attributes requires taking the i_mutex.

Don't do it, then?  If you _must_ write to xattr on final fput, I'd suggest
starting to figure out if xattr needs its protection to be ->i_mutex - it
might make sense to introduce a separate mutex for xattr crap.  Or not - I'm
not familiar enough with the guts of xattr handling in individual filesystems
to tell if that would work (e.g. if it would need unpleasant changes to
->setattr() instances)...