On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 08:45:17PM -0400, Eric Paris wrote: > I'll take a close look over the weekend, but I'm pretty sure this is > even more strict than it needs to be. I looked at this a while ago > and the only RCU unsafe location I could find was in the generic LSM > 'audit' code (nothing to do with the audit subsystem). That code can > do a d = d_find_alias(); dput(d). I don't think I realized the dput() > was not RCU safe at the time. We use it to come up with a name of a > dentry that might have caused the denial (although obviously not > necessarily the right name) > > I could just drop that piece of functionality (and rely on the audit > subsystem for the info), but I think I'd rather do it your way. I > think I can push your flags a lot deeper than you have pushed them > (and remove them in some places you have included them). Let me look > over the next day or two.... Sounds good. I would prefer to do that as a follow on patch to make this patch not even more complicated. Is that ok for you? Also the same approach could be applied to SMACK then I guess. -Andi -- 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
