Re: [PATCH 1/5] WIP: Add syscall unlinkat_s (currently x86* only)

[Alexander Holler]

Am 03.02.2015 um 07:05 schrieb Al Viro:
> On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 06:05:09PM +0100, Alexander Holler wrote:
>> +	if (inode) {
>> +		// TODO:
>> +		// if (inode is file and 's' flag is set)
>> +		// 	secure = true;
>> +		if (!secure)
>> +			iput(inode);	/* truncate the inode here */
>> +		else {
>> +			struct super_block *sb = inode->i_sb;
>> +			if (sb->s_op->set_secure_delete)
>> +				sb->s_op->set_secure_delete(sb, true);
>> +			// TODO: We should fail if secure isn't supported,
>> +			// look up how that's possible here.
>> +			iput(inode);	/* truncate the inode here */
>> +			// TODO: check if sb is still valid after the inode is gone
>> +			sync_filesystem(sb);
>> +			if (sb->s_op->set_secure_delete)
>> +				sb->s_op->set_secure_delete(sb, false);
>> +		}
> 
> Charming.  Now, what exactly happens if two such syscalls overlap in time?

What do you think will happen? I assume you haven't looked at how I've
implemented set_secure_delete(). CHarming.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/