[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

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



* Timothy R. Chavez (chavezt 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


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]