Re: [PATCH v5 15/16] ima: Move dentries into ima_namespace
From: James Bottomley <hidden>
Date: 2021-12-12 14:13:42
Also in:
linux-integrity, lkml
On Fri, 2021-12-10 at 12:49 +0100, Christian Brauner wrote:
On Thu, Dec 09, 2021 at 02:38:13PM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
[...]
quoted
@@ -317,21 +315,15 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(securityfs_create_symlink); void securityfs_remove(struct dentry *dentry) { struct user_namespace *ns = dentry->d_sb->s_user_ns; - struct inode *dir; if (!dentry || IS_ERR(dentry)) return; - dir = d_inode(dentry->d_parent); - inode_lock(dir); if (simple_positive(dentry)) { - if (d_is_dir(dentry)) - simple_rmdir(dir, dentry); - else - simple_unlink(dir, dentry); + d_delete(dentry);Not, that doesn't work. You can't just call d_delete() and dput() and even if I wouldn't advise it. And you also can't do this without taking the inode lock on the directory.
Agreed on that
simple_rmdir()/simple_unlink() take care to update various inode
fields in the parent dir and handle link counts. This really wants to
be sm like
struct inode *parent_inode;
parent_inode = d_inode(dentry->d_parent);
inode_lock(parent_inode);
if (simple_positive(dentry)) {
dget(dentry);
if (d_is_dir(dentry)
simple_unlink(parent_inode, dentry);
else
simple_unlink(parent_inode, dentry);
d_delete(dentry);
dput(dentry);
}
inode_unlock(parent_inode);
It just slightly annoys me how the simple_ functions change fields in
an inode that is about to be evicted ... it seems redundant; plus we
shouldn't care if the object we're deleting is a directory or file. I
also don't think we need the additional dget because the only consumer
is policy file removal and the opener of that file will have done a
dget. The inode lock now prevents us racing with another remove in the
case of two simultaneous writes.
How about
struct inode *parent_inode;
parent_inode = d_inode(dentry->d_parent);
inode_lock(parent_inode);
if (simple_positive(dentry)) {
drop_nlink(parent_inode);
d_delete(dentry);
dput(dentry);
}
inode_unlock(parent_inode);
James