On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 08:28:33PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 02:14:31AM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > > On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 04:40:35PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > > > After using simple_unlink(), a call to d_delete() is needed in addition > > > to dput(). > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keesc...@chromium.org> > > > --- > > > Is this correct? I went looking around and there are a lot of variations > > > on the simple_unlink() pattern... > > > > > > Many using explicit locking and combinations of d_drop(), __d_drop(), etc. > > > > Quite a few of those should switch to simple_recursive_removal(). As for > > securityfs... d_drop() is _probably_ a saner variant, but looking at the > > callers of that thing... at least IMA ones seem to be garbage. > > Hmm, I dunno. I hadn't looked at these yet. I'm not sure what's needed > for those cases. > > Is my patch to add d_delete() correct, though? I'm trying to construct > the right set of calls for pstore's filesystem, and I noticed that most > will do simple_unlink(), d_delete(), dput(), but securityfs seemed to be > missing it.
d_drop(). d_delete() is for the situations when you want the sucker to become a hashed negative, if at all possible. Re pstore: context, please.
