[PATCH 05/13] selinux: Use simple_start_creating() / simple_done_creating()

[NeilBrown]

On Mon, 23 Feb 2026, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 21, 2026 at 5:28 PM NeilBrown <neilb at ownmail.net> wrote:
> > On Sat, 21 Feb 2026, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 4, 2026 at 12:08 AM NeilBrown <neilb at ownmail.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > From: NeilBrown <neil at brown.name>
> > > >
> > > > Instead of explicitly locking the parent and performing a lookup in
> > > > selinux, use simple_start_creating(), and then use
> > > > simple_done_creating() to unlock.
> > > >
> > > > This extends the region that the directory is locked for, and also
> > > > performs a lookup.
> > > > The lock extension is of no real consequence.
> > > > The lookup uses simple_lookup() and so always succeeds.  Thus when
> > > > d_make_persistent() is called the dentry will already be hashed.
> > > > d_make_persistent() handles this case.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neil at brown.name>
> > > > ---
> > > >  security/selinux/selinuxfs.c | 15 +++++++--------
> > > >  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > Unless I'm missing something, there is no reason why I couldn't take
> > > just this patch into the SELinux tree once the merge window closes,
> > > yes?
> >
> > Yes - but ...
> >
> > Once this series lands (hopefully soon - I will resend after -rc1 is
> > out) I have another batch which depends on the new start_creating etc
> > API being used everywhere ...
> 
> Okay, thanks for letting me know.  I was curious about something like
> that based on the cover letter, but the timing wasn't clear.
> 
> Acked-by: Paul Moore <paul at paul-moore.com>

Thank!

NeilBrown