On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 7:37 AM, Eric Paris <epa...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> but at least from an SELinux PoV, I think it's quick and easy, but wrong
> for maintainability...
Yeah, it's a hack, and it's wrong, and we should figure out how to do
it right. Likely we should just tie the lifetime of the i_security
member directly to the lifetime of the inode itself, and just make the
rule be that security_inode_free() gets called from whatever frees the
inode itself, and *not* have an extra rcu callback etc. But that
sounds like a bigger change than I'm comfy with right now, so the
hacky one might be the band-aid to do for stable..
The problem, of course, is that all the different filesystems have
their own inode allocations/freeing. Of course, they all tend to share
the same pattern ("call_rcu xyz_i_callback"), so maybe we could try to
make that a more generic thing? Like have a "free_inode" vfs callback,
and do the call_rcu delaying at the VFS level..
And maybe, just maybe, we could just say that that is what
"destroy_inode()" is, and that we will just call it from rcu context.
All the IO has hopefully been done earlier Yes/no?
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
