Re: [RFC][PATCH] (#5) prelim auditfs

* Timothy R. Chavez (chavezt(a)gmail.com) wrote: > Chris, I wasn't really able to find much on the umount() problem the > Inotify guys were having. I found a conversation / beat down which > alluded to it, but that's it. Still, I hadn't actually tested the > behavior when I umount a device that has watches on it, so I figured > I'd at least do this test: > > I added watches to a mount, removed the mount, and saw all the watches > putting back all their references and being freed / put back into > their respective caches. This is the correct behavior in my book. > Was it something more / different? I agree, that's correct behaviour. The inotify case was while adding a watch to an inode, they didn't have proper ref to inode, so racing umount could leave inotify pointing to a bogus inode. http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=110668380020325&w=2

thanks, -chris -- Linux Security Modules http://lsm.immunix.org http://lsm.bkbits.net