Hi,
sorry for getting to this so late but I was catching up after vacation and
your replies got burried in my inbox.
On Fri 27-07-18 00:47:04, Paul Moore wrote:
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 6:02 AM Jan Kara <jack(a)suse.cz> wrote:
> Currently, audit_tree code uses mark->lock to protect against detaching
> of mark from an inode. In most places it however also uses
> mark->group->mark_mutex (as we need to atomically replace attached
> marks) and this provides protection against mark detaching as well. So
> just remove protection with mark->lock from audit tree code and replace
> it with mark->group->mark_mutex protection in all the places. It
> simplifies the code and gets rid of some ugly catches like calling
> fsnotify_add_mark_locked() with mark->lock held (which cannot sleep only
> because we hold a reference to another mark attached to the same inode).
>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack(a)suse.cz>
> ---
> kernel/audit_tree.c | 24 ++++--------------------
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
...
> diff --git a/kernel/audit_tree.c b/kernel/audit_tree.c
> index 02feef939560..1c82eb6674c4 100644
> --- a/kernel/audit_tree.c
> +++ b/kernel/audit_tree.c
> @@ -360,12 +355,12 @@ static int create_chunk(struct inode *inode, struct audit_tree
*tree)
> return -ENOSPC;
> }
>
> - spin_lock(&entry->lock);
> + mutex_lock(&entry->group->mark_mutex);
I wonder if we could move the lock up above the
fsnotify_add_inode_mark() earlier in create_chunk() and use
fsnotify_add_mark_locked()?
Possibly, but I didn't want to do this in this patch as that's a separate
change. Also this is what in fact happens in later patches.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack(a)suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR