On Mon, 23 Feb 2026, Paul Moore wrote: > On Sat, Feb 21, 2026 at 5:28 PM NeilBrown <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sat, 21 Feb 2026, Paul Moore wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 4, 2026 at 12:08 AM NeilBrown <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > From: NeilBrown <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > Instead of explicitly locking the parent and performing a lookup in > > > > selinux, use simple_start_creating(), and then use > > > > simple_done_creating() to unlock. > > > > > > > > This extends the region that the directory is locked for, and also > > > > performs a lookup. > > > > The lock extension is of no real consequence. > > > > The lookup uses simple_lookup() and so always succeeds. Thus when > > > > d_make_persistent() is called the dentry will already be hashed. > > > > d_make_persistent() handles this case. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <[email protected]> > > > > --- > > > > security/selinux/selinuxfs.c | 15 +++++++-------- > > > > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > > > > > Unless I'm missing something, there is no reason why I couldn't take > > > just this patch into the SELinux tree once the merge window closes, > > > yes? > > > > Yes - but ... > > > > Once this series lands (hopefully soon - I will resend after -rc1 is > > out) I have another batch which depends on the new start_creating etc > > API being used everywhere ... > > Okay, thanks for letting me know. I was curious about something like > that based on the cover letter, but the timing wasn't clear. > > Acked-by: Paul Moore <[email protected]>
Thank! NeilBrown
