[RFC][PATCH] (#5) prelim auditfs
Chris Wright
chrisw at osdl.org
Mon Feb 28 20:40:55 UTC 2005
* Timothy R. Chavez (chavezt at 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
More information about the Linux-audit
mailing list