On Nov 4, 2013, at 16:24, Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 4 Nov 2013 21:00:46 +0000 > "Myklebust, Trond" <Trond.Myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> On Nov 4, 2013, at 15:51, Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> Currently, we just discard the nfs4_label information, instead of using it >>> to update the file LSM security info. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> I forgot to add a "Reported-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>”. Fixed now... >> >>> --- >>> fs/nfs/inode.c | 1 + >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/fs/nfs/inode.c b/fs/nfs/inode.c >>> index 471ba59c42f9..09d4df5f588a 100644 >>> --- a/fs/nfs/inode.c >>> +++ b/fs/nfs/inode.c >>> @@ -920,6 +920,7 @@ __nfs_revalidate_inode(struct nfs_server *server, struct inode *inode) >>> goto err_out; >>> } >>> >>> + nfs_setsecurity(inode, fattr, label); >>> if (nfsi->cache_validity & NFS_INO_INVALID_ACL) >>> nfs_zap_acl_cache(inode); >>> >>> -- >>> 1.8.3.1 >>> >> > > No worries -- looks fine. > > Out of curiousity, is there a reason to call nfs_setsecurity prior to > zapping the ACL cache? The patch I had proposed did it afterward, but I > didn't think it mattered much either way... It shouldn’t make a huge difference, no; either way, there be plenty races here… Trond-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
