Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 03/11] VFS: Add security label support to *notify | From | Dave Quigley <> | Date | Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:05:11 -0500 |
| |
On Thu, 2008-02-28 at 16:15 -0500, Josef 'Jeff' Sipek wrote: > On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 03:39:30PM -0500, Dave Quigley wrote: > ... > > > Alright...so, few things... > > > > > > 1) why do you need the locked/unlocked versions? > > > > > > 2) instead of passing a flag to a common function, why not have: > > > > > > vfs_setxattr_locked(....) > > > { > > > // original code minus the lock/unlock calls > > > } > > > > > > vfs_setxattr(....) > > > { > > > mutex_lock(...); > > > vfs_setxattr_locked(...); > > > mutex_unlock(...); > > > } > > > > What we do and what you propose aren't logically equivalent. There is a > > permission check inside vfs_setxattr before the mutex lock. > > Ah, right. I didn't notice the @@ line... > > Josef 'Jeff' Sipek. >
I'm compiling a test kernel with your proposed change to make sure it doesn't deadlock. If it works then I'll go with your solution since its less messy.
Dave
| |