[PATCH v12 01/26] securityfs: rework dentry creation

Stefan Berger stefanb at linux.ibm.com
Tue May 10 16:50:40 UTC 2022



On 5/10/22 06:25, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Mon, May 09, 2022 at 02:54:14PM -0500, Serge Hallyn wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 10:06:08AM -0400, Stefan Berger wrote:
>>> From: Christian Brauner <brauner at kernel.org>
>>>
>>> When securityfs creates a new file or directory via
>>> securityfs_create_dentry() it will take an additional reference on the
>>> newly created dentry after it has attached the new inode to the new
>>> dentry and added it to the hashqueues.
>>> If we contrast this with debugfs which has the same underlying logic as
>>> securityfs. It uses a similar pairing as securityfs. Where securityfs
>>> has the securityfs_create_dentry() and securityfs_remove() pairing,
>>> debugfs has the __debugfs_create_file() and debugfs_remove() pairing.
>>>
>>> In contrast to securityfs, debugfs doesn't take an additional reference
>>> on the newly created dentry in __debugfs_create_file() which would need
>>> to be put in debugfs_remove().
>>>
>>> The additional dget() isn't a problem per se. In the current
>>> implementation of securityfs each created dentry pins the filesystem via
>>
>> Is 'via' an extra word here or is there a missing word?
>>
>> I'll delay the rest of my response as the missing word may answer my
>> remaining question :)
> 
> It can be both. It should either be removed or it should be followed by
> "securityfs_create_dentry()". securityfs_create_dentry() takes two

I am adding "securityfs_create_dentry()" to the text.



More information about the Linux-security-module-archive mailing list