On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 10:50:27PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > This is still wrong. > > (a) there is no explanation for why we need that exclusive lock in the > first place > > Why should a read need exclusive access? You'd think shared is sufficient. > But regardless, it needs *explanation*.
Shared is sufficient, and nothing in the patch (except for the description) actually requires an exclusive lock. It just happens that ima holds it exclusive for other internal reasons.
