From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759695Ab1LOWzW (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Dec 2011 17:55:22 -0500 Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:36332 "EHLO ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759654Ab1LOWzV (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Dec 2011 17:55:21 -0500 Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 22:55:17 +0000 From: Al Viro To: Lino Sanfilippo Cc: Miklos Szeredi , Linus Torvalds , Eric Paris , akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH resend] audit: fix mark refcounting 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 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20111215200631.GA2379@Neptun> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@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.