On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 03:59:44PM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > Why is it that in fs/nfsd/vfs.c only vfs_mknod() and vfs_rename() are > surrounded by mnt_want_write/mnt_drop_write, and not the other > operations (vfs_create, vfs_mkdir, vfs_symlink, ...)? > > I noticed this while looking at the AppArmor patches, which need to > pass the vfsmount down to the security module. And I'm wondering, why > can't mnt_want_write() and mnt_drop_write() be done _inside_ vfs_foo()? > > I know there are a few cases, where filesystems call vfs_foo() > internally, where the vfsmount isn't available, but I think the proper > solution is just to fix those places, and not recurse back into the > VFS (which is AFAICS in all those cases totally unnecessary anyway). > This would make everybody happy, no? Apparmor can go play with itself. The proper fix is to lift the LSM nonsense into callers and leave vfs_...() alone; vfsmounts should *not* be passed there at all, with the exception of vfs_follow_link() which gets the full nameidata. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
