On Thu 2010-10-28 18:45:07, Eric Paris wrote: > On Thu, 2010-10-28 at 15:29 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Why the wrapper functions and locking? Why not an atomic variable like > > > i_writecount? > > > > Indeed. With moving this more into the VFS, let's just make sure it > > looks like i_writecount as much as possible. > > My thought was that the IMA read/write checks should happen AFTER the > i_writecount and i_readcount counters were updated. Thus even if we > raced with another task we can rest assured that the other task would > catch the situation we missed.... Is not that too late? The other process may have already acted on that data... -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- 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
