Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 14:35:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@tiscali.co.uk>
cc: Mimi Zohar <zohar@us.ibm.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
       Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, Serge Hallyn <serue@us.ibm.com>,
       James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] integrity: fix IMA inode leak
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.01.0906061416170.6847@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.01.0906061433490.6847@localhost.localdomain>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0906062109580.8365@sister.anvils> <alpine.LFD.2.01.0906061416170.6847@localhost.localdomain>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.01 (LFD 1184 2008-12-16)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1059
Lines: 29


On Sat, 6 Jun 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 6 Jun 2009, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> >
> > CONFIG_IMA=y inode activity leaks iint_cache and radix_tree_node objects
> > until the system runs out of memory.  Nowhere is calling ima_inode_free()
> > a.k.a. ima_iint_delete().  Fix that by calling it from destroy_inode().
> 
> Shouldn't we call it from "security_inode_free()" instead? And shouldn't 
> it be allocated in "security_inode_alloc()"? That sounds like the correct 
> nesting here, since the whole integrity thing is under the security 
> module.
> 
> Hmm?

Oh well. I applied the patch as-is, since it seems to fix a real issue. 

But I do think fs/inode.c shouldn't care about things like that, and have 
it internal to security_inode_alloc/free(). But I guess that's a separate 
cleanup.

		Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/