It is OK to let access() go without using a mnt_want/drop_write() pair because
it doesn't actually do writes to the filesystem, and it is inherently racy
anyway. This is a rare case when it is OK to use __mnt_is_readonly()
directly.
Acked-by: Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
---
linux-2.6.git-dave/fs/open.c | 13 +++++++++++--
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff -puN fs/open.c~r-o-bind-mounts-make-access-use-mnt-check fs/open.c
--- linux-2.6.git/fs/open.c~r-o-bind-mounts-make-access-use-mnt-check 2007-11-01 14:46:18.000000000 -0700
+++ linux-2.6.git-dave/fs/open.c 2007-11-01 14:46:18.000000000 -0700
@@ -459,8 +459,17 @@ asmlinkage long sys_faccessat(int dfd, c
if(res || !(mode & S_IWOTH) ||
special_file(nd.dentry->d_inode->i_mode))
goto out_path_release;
-
- if(IS_RDONLY(nd.dentry->d_inode))
+ /*
+ * This is a rare case where using __mnt_is_readonly()
+ * is OK without a mnt_want/drop_write() pair. Since
+ * no actual write to the fs is performed here, we do
+ * not need to telegraph to that to anyone.
+ *
+ * By doing this, we accept that this access is
+ * inherently racy and know that the fs may change
+ * state before we even see this result.
+ */
+ if (__mnt_is_readonly(nd.mnt))
res = -EROFS;
out_path_release:
_
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
