Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <c76f52d9-07eb-39dd-dad4-43b108696539@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Tue, 10 May 2022 12:50:40 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 01/26] securityfs: rework dentry creation
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>
Cc:     linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, zohar@linux.ibm.com,
        christian.brauner@ubuntu.com, containers@lists.linux.dev,
        dmitry.kasatkin@gmail.com, ebiederm@xmission.com,
        krzysztof.struczynski@huawei.com, roberto.sassu@huawei.com,
        mpeters@redhat.com, lhinds@redhat.com, lsturman@redhat.com,
        puiterwi@redhat.com, jejb@linux.ibm.com, jamjoom@us.ibm.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, paul@paul-moore.com, rgb@redhat.com,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, jmorris@namei.org,
        jpenumak@redhat.com, John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com>,
        Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>,
        Micah Morton <mortonm@chromium.org>,
        Kentaro Takeda <takedakn@nttdata.co.jp>,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org>
References: <20220420140633.753772-1-stefanb@linux.ibm.com>
 <20220420140633.753772-2-stefanb@linux.ibm.com>
 <20220509195414.GA30894@mail.hallyn.com>
 <20220510102525.hlt2rm3k3hg5r6gg@wittgenstein>
From:   Stefan Berger <stefanb@linux.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <20220510102525.hlt2rm3k3hg5r6gg@wittgenstein>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


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@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.