On Tue, 2015-02-03 at 07:58 +0100, Alexander Holler wrote:
> Am 03.02.2015 um 07:05 schrieb Al Viro:
> > On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 06:05:09PM +0100, Alexander Holler wrote:
> >> + if (inode) {
> >> + // TODO:
> >> + // if (inode is file and 's' flag is set)
> >> + // secure = true;
> >> + if (!secure)
> >> + iput(inode); /* truncate the inode here */
> >> + else {
> >> + struct super_block *sb = inode->i_sb;
> >> + if (sb->s_op->set_secure_delete)
> >> + sb->s_op->set_secure_delete(sb, true);
> >> + // TODO: We should fail if secure isn't supported,
> >> + // look up how that's possible here.
> >> + iput(inode); /* truncate the inode here */
> >> + // TODO: check if sb is still valid after the inode is
> >> gone
> >> + sync_filesystem(sb);
> >> + if (sb->s_op->set_secure_delete)
> >> + sb->s_op->set_secure_delete(sb, false);
> >> + }
> >
> > Charming. Now, what exactly happens if two such syscalls overlap in time?
>
> What do you think will happen? I assume you haven't looked at how I've
> implemented set_secure_delete(). CHarming.
Chill, why don't you.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
