From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "J. R. Okajima" <hooanon05g@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] overlayfs: copyup security inode field
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 14:17:13 +0900
Message-ID: <3324.1395292633@jrobl>
References: <20140319152007.GF7642@w-fr-zakariae>
Cc: miklos@szeredi.hu, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
To: Zakaria ElQotbi <zakaria.elqotbi@redbend.com>
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail04-md.ns.itscom.net ([175.177.155.114]:35597 "EHLO
	mail04-md.ns.itscom.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1750710AbaCTFRP (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 20 Mar 2014 01:17:15 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20140319152007.GF7642@w-fr-zakariae>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>


Zakaria ElQotbi:
> I think this field must be the same as the underlying filesystem, instead of
> creating new fresh one at ovl_new_inode() which give an UNLABELED sid.

When two inodes refers to a single inode_security_struct (i_security),
won't it cause a "double free" problem?


J. R. Okajima