On Mon, 14 May 2012, Cong Wang wrote: > On 05/12/2012 08:02 PM, Hugh Dickins wrote: > > Let tmpfs into the NOSEC optimization (avoiding file_remove_suid() > > overhead on most common writes): set MS_NOSEC on its superblocks. > > > > Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins<hughd@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > mm/shmem.c | 1 + > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > > > --- 3045N.orig/mm/shmem.c 2012-05-05 10:45:17.888060878 -0700 > > +++ 3045N/mm/shmem.c 2012-05-05 10:46:05.732062006 -0700 > > @@ -2361,6 +2361,7 @@ int shmem_fill_super(struct super_block > > } > > } > > sb->s_export_op =&shmem_export_ops; > > + sb->s_flags |= MS_NOSEC; > > Isn't setting the flag on inode better? Something like: I don't think so. The MS_NOSEC S_NOSEC business is fairly subtle, and easy to miss if it's gone wrong, so I would much rather follow the established pattern in local block filesystems: which is to set MS_NOSEC in superblock flags, and leave S_NOSEC to file_remove_suid(). Hugh > > diff --git a/mm/shmem.c b/mm/shmem.c > index f99ff3e..7d98fb5 100644 > --- a/mm/shmem.c > +++ b/mm/shmem.c > @@ -2325,6 +2325,7 @@ static void shmem_init_inode(void *foo) > { > struct shmem_inode_info *info = foo; > inode_init_once(&info->vfs_inode); > + info->vfs_inode.i_flags |= S_NOSEC; > } > > static int shmem_init_inodecache(void) -- 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