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

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



On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 12:40:55 -0800, Chris Wright <chrisw osdl org> wrote:
> * 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

Ah ok.  I should probably take a much closer look at this in my code.

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


-- 
- Timothy R. Chavez


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