On Tue, Sep 05, 2023 at 08:02:59PM +0200, David Sterba wrote: > On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 01:24:29PM +0200, Bernd Schubert wrote: > > While adding shared direct IO write locks to fuse Miklos noticed > > that file_remove_privs() needs an exclusive lock. I then > > noticed that btrfs actually has the same issue as I had in my patch, > > it was calling into that function with a shared lock. > > This series adds a new exported function file_needs_remove_privs(), > > which used by the follow up btrfs patch and will be used by the > > DIO code path in fuse as well. If that function returns any mask > > the shared lock needs to be dropped and replaced by the exclusive > > variant. > > > > Note: Compilation tested only. > > The fix makes sense, there should be no noticeable performance impact, > basically the same check is done in the newly exported helper for the > IS_NOSEC bit. I can give it a test locally for the default case, I'm > not sure if we have specific tests for the security layers in fstests. > > Regarding merge, I can take the two patches via btrfs tree or can wait > until the export is present in Linus' tree in case FUSE needs it > independently. Both fuse and btrfs need it afaict. We can grab it and provide a tag post -rc1? Whatever works best.
