On Tue, 2011-12-06 at 10:09 -0600, MAILER-DAEMON wrote: > On Tue, 2011-12-06 at 10:14 -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 12:42:21PM -0600, Chandra Seetharaman wrote: > > > while running test case 234 from xfstests test suite, I was getting an > > > occational memory fault in inode_has_perm() with the following stack > > > > Interesting. Given that have no good way to free other data with the > > normal inode callback it looks like we indeed need to do this > > separately. > > > > What about IMA or similar monsters? Posix ACLs already are covered at > > least. > > > > Hi Christoph, > > The problem is pretty much located in the function > fs/inode.c:destroy_inode(), which calls __destroy_inode(), which does > the freeing, and then does the call_rcu() on the inode. > > I looked at all the functions in __destroy_inode() and found only > security_inode_free() to be problematic. Others would handle the > situation gracefully. > > Sorry for the lack of knowledge. what is IMA ? > > Chandra security_inode_free() calls security/integrity/iint.c: integrity_inode_free(), which frees the 'iint'. For more information on IMA, refer to linux-ima.sf.net. thanks, Mimi _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
