On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 08:42:35PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > ... why is that a problem? ?Locking there is mere ->i_lock and getting > > a refcount is atomic_inc(). ?Grabbing a reference might be Not Nice from > > the cacheline bouncing POV, but... > > I agree in theory, but it's not something we've done before. Some of > the posix-acl code is pretty disgusting, I didn't even want to go > there. > > And the case that tends to really *matter* is the "no acls" case > anyway, and that's the case that is guaranteed to have no nasty races > or odd issues with having to allocate/de-allocate any acl structures. > But yes, this could be looked at. Heh... In addition to ocfs2 leak: 9p leaks nicely if v9fs_acl_mode() is called with !S_ISDIR(mode). In that case acl reference is simply lost. So yes, it's worth looking at. -- 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
