From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id pB6GZ758241047 for ; Tue, 6 Dec 2011 10:35:08 -0600 Received: from e3.ny.us.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 1F0D929ED86 for ; Tue, 6 Dec 2011 08:35:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from e3.ny.us.ibm.com (e3.ny.us.ibm.com [32.97.182.143]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id 7BN1q83xKT3vBQN8 for ; Tue, 06 Dec 2011 08:35:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from /spool/local by e3.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Tue, 6 Dec 2011 11:35:03 -0500 Received: from d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (d03av01.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.167]) by d01relay05.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id pB6GYajD084756 for ; Tue, 6 Dec 2011 11:34:36 -0500 Received: from d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id pB6GYOgP030828 for ; Tue, 6 Dec 2011 09:34:24 -0700 Subject: Re: [PATCH] security: Delay freeing inode->i_security till the end of RCU grace period From: Mimi Zohar Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2011 11:30:36 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20111206151429.GB11874@infradead.org> References: <1323110541.31919.1451.camel@chandra-lucid.austin.ibm.com> <20111206151429.GB11874@infradead.org> Message-ID: <1323189102.2165.39.camel@falcor> Mime-Version: 1.0 List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Paris , linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, Eric@oss.sgi.com, sekharan@linux.vnet.ibm.com, XFS Mailing List On Tue, 2011-12-06 at 10:14 -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 12:42:21PM -0600, Chandra Seetharaman wrote: > > while running test case 234 from xfstests test suite, I was getting an > > occational memory fault in inode_has_perm() with the following stack > > Interesting. Given that have no good way to free other data with the > normal inode callback it looks like we indeed need to do this > separately. > > What about IMA or similar monsters? Posix ACLs already are covered at > least. Looks like a similar problem exists with the 'iint'. Mimi _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs