Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1621104 > unrolled thread

[PATCH v2 0/3] make ubifs compatible with IMA and EVM.

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

Contents

  [PATCH v2 0/3] make ubifs compatible with IMA and EVM. Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@pengutronix.de> - 2017-04-11 12:00 +0200
    [PATCH v2 3/3] fs: ubifs: set s_uuid in super block Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@pengutronix.de> - 2017-04-11 12:00 +0200
      Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] fs: ubifs: set s_uuid in super block Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at> - 2017-04-11 22:50 +0200
        Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] fs: ubifs: set s_uuid in super block Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> - 2017-04-12 07:50 +0200
          Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] fs: ubifs: set s_uuid in super block Oleksij Rempel <ore@pengutronix.de> - 2017-04-12 09:20 +0200
            Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] fs: ubifs: set s_uuid in super block Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at> - 2017-04-24 17:50 +0200
              Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] fs: ubifs: set s_uuid in super block Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at> - 2017-04-28 00:10 +0200
                Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] fs: ubifs: set s_uuid in super block Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> - 2017-04-28 11:00 +0200
                  Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] fs: ubifs: set s_uuid in super block Oleksij Rempel <ore@pengutronix.de> - 2017-05-02 07:40 +0200
                Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] fs: ubifs: set s_uuid in super block Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> - 2017-05-02 09:30 +0200
                  Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] fs: ubifs: set s_uuid in super block Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at> - 2017-05-02 09:40 +0200
                    Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] fs: ubifs: set s_uuid in super block Oleksij Rempel <ore@pengutronix.de> - 2017-05-09 06:20 +0200
                      Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] fs: ubifs: set s_uuid in super block Oleksij Rempel <ore@pengutronix.de> - 2017-05-09 08:00 +0200
                        Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] fs: ubifs: set s_uuid in super block Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 09:10 +0200
                          Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] fs: ubifs: set s_uuid in super block Oleksij Rempel <ore@pengutronix.de> - 2017-05-09 09:40 +0200
                          Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] fs: ubifs: set s_uuid in super block Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at> - 2017-05-09 09:40 +0200
                            Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] fs: ubifs: set s_uuid in super block Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 10:00 +0200
                        Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] fs: ubifs: set s_uuid in super block Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at> - 2017-05-09 09:10 +0200
        Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] fs: ubifs: set s_uuid in super block Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com> - 2017-05-02 09:30 +0200
    [PATCH v2 2/3] fs: ubifs: update i_version on inode changes Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@pengutronix.de> - 2017-04-11 12:00 +0200
      Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] fs: ubifs: update i_version on inode changes Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> - 2017-04-11 18:10 +0200
        Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] fs: ubifs: update i_version on inode changes Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at> - 2017-04-11 23:20 +0200
          Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] fs: ubifs: update i_version on inode changes Oleksij Rempel <ore@pengutronix.de> - 2017-04-12 08:10 +0200
            Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] fs: ubifs: update i_version on inode changes Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> - 2017-04-12 08:10 +0200
              Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] fs: ubifs: update i_version on inode changes Oleksij Rempel <ore@pengutronix.de> - 2017-04-12 09:10 +0200
                Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] fs: ubifs: update i_version on inode changes Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at> - 2017-04-24 17:50 +0200
    [PATCH v2 1/3] fs: ubifs: parse iversion mount option Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@pengutronix.de> - 2017-04-11 12:00 +0200

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#1621104 — [PATCH v2 0/3] make ubifs compatible with IMA and EVM.

To make ubifs compatible with IMA nad EVM security modules:
- we need to notify them about inode changes over inode->i_version
- provide super block uuid to allow fs choice by uuid.

Oleksij Rempel (1):
  fs: ubifs: update i_version on inode changes

Steffen Trumtrar (2):
  fs: ubifs: parse iversion mount option
  fs: ubifs: set s_uuid in super block

 fs/ubifs/file.c  | 9 +++++++++
 fs/ubifs/super.c | 8 +++++++-
 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

-- 
2.11.0

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1621108 — [PATCH v2 3/3] fs: ubifs: set s_uuid in super block

From: Steffen Trumtrar <s.trumtrar@pengutronix.de>

This is need to provide uuid based integrity functionlity for:
imy_policy (fsuuid option) and  evmctl (--uuid option).

Signed-off-by: Steffen Trumtrar <s.trumtrar@pengutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@pengutronix.de>
---
 fs/ubifs/super.c | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/fs/ubifs/super.c b/fs/ubifs/super.c
index bff1e8d6f7bd..a584b2f2b11d 100644
--- a/fs/ubifs/super.c
+++ b/fs/ubifs/super.c
@@ -2077,6 +2077,7 @@ static int ubifs_fill_super(struct super_block *sb, void *data, int silent)
 		err = -ENOMEM;
 		goto out_umount;
 	}
+	memcpy(&sb->s_uuid, &c->uuid, sizeof(c->uuid));
 
 	mutex_unlock(&c->umount_mutex);
 	return 0;
-- 
2.11.0

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1621607 — Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] fs: ubifs: set s_uuid in super block

Oleksij,

Am 11.04.2017 um 11:50 schrieb Oleksij Rempel:
> From: Steffen Trumtrar <s.trumtrar@pengutronix.de>
> 
> This is need to provide uuid based integrity functionlity for:
> imy_policy (fsuuid option) and  evmctl (--uuid option).
> 
> Signed-off-by: Steffen Trumtrar <s.trumtrar@pengutronix.de>
> Signed-off-by: Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@pengutronix.de>
> ---
>  fs/ubifs/super.c | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/ubifs/super.c b/fs/ubifs/super.c
> index bff1e8d6f7bd..a584b2f2b11d 100644
> --- a/fs/ubifs/super.c
> +++ b/fs/ubifs/super.c
> @@ -2077,6 +2077,7 @@ static int ubifs_fill_super(struct super_block *sb, void *data, int silent)
>  		err = -ENOMEM;
>  		goto out_umount;
>  	}
> +	memcpy(&sb->s_uuid, &c->uuid, sizeof(c->uuid));

Makes sense.

Artem, do you remember why UBIFS didn't set s_uuid in first place?

Thanks,
//richard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1621820 — Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] fs: ubifs: set s_uuid in super block

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 10:43:26PM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Artem, do you remember why UBIFS didn't set s_uuid in first place?

It's an extremely odd field - only a hand full of file systems set it
(e.g. XFS doesn't, although according to Mimi IMA supports XFS), and
it's never even used outside of the IMA/EVM code.

We really need a feature flag that this field is valid that IMA can
check before adding more support for it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1621863 — Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] fs: ubifs: set s_uuid in super block

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 10:48:28PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 10:43:26PM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> > Artem, do you remember why UBIFS didn't set s_uuid in first place?
> 
> It's an extremely odd field - only a hand full of file systems set it
> (e.g. XFS doesn't, although according to Mimi IMA supports XFS), and
> it's never even used outside of the IMA/EVM code.
> 
> We really need a feature flag that this field is valid that IMA can
> check before adding more support for it.

It seems to be used by mm/cleancache.c
void __cleancache_init_shared_fs()

but this affects only ocfs2.

So, if some flag should be implemented, who should do it? :)
If me, what flag should be created?

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1629698 — Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] fs: ubifs: set s_uuid in super block

Oleksij,

Am 12.04.2017 um 09:15 schrieb Oleksij Rempel:
> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 10:48:28PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 10:43:26PM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>>> Artem, do you remember why UBIFS didn't set s_uuid in first place?
>>
>> It's an extremely odd field - only a hand full of file systems set it
>> (e.g. XFS doesn't, although according to Mimi IMA supports XFS), and
>> it's never even used outside of the IMA/EVM code.
>>
>> We really need a feature flag that this field is valid that IMA can
>> check before adding more support for it.
> 
> It seems to be used by mm/cleancache.c
> void __cleancache_init_shared_fs()
> 
> but this affects only ocfs2.
> 
> So, if some flag should be implemented, who should do it? :)

I'll not do it for you. ;)

> If me, what flag should be created?

A super block flag that denotes that s_uuid is valid.

Thanks,
//richard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1632400 — Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] fs: ubifs: set s_uuid in super block

Am 24.04.2017 um 17:47 schrieb Richard Weinberger:
>> So, if some flag should be implemented, who should do it? :)
> 
> I'll not do it for you. ;)

Please also see http://marc.info/?l=linux-fsdevel&m=149327990608749&w=2

Thanks,
//richard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1632700 — Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] fs: ubifs: set s_uuid in super block

On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 1:03 AM, Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at> wrote:
> Am 24.04.2017 um 17:47 schrieb Richard Weinberger:
>>> So, if some flag should be implemented, who should do it? :)
>>
>> I'll not do it for you. ;)
>
> Please also see http://marc.info/?l=linux-fsdevel&m=149327990608749&w=2
>

Perhaps you meant this:
https://marc.info/?l=linux-fsdevel&m=149328358909709&w=2

There does not seem to be much objections to adding the flag,
so hopefully, we can merge it for v.12 and filesystems and consumers
will pick it up whenever.

Amir.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1634140 — Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] fs: ubifs: set s_uuid in super block

On 04/28/2017 10:53 AM, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 1:03 AM, Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at> wrote:
>> Am 24.04.2017 um 17:47 schrieb Richard Weinberger:
>>>> So, if some flag should be implemented, who should do it? :)
>>>
>>> I'll not do it for you. ;)
>>
>> Please also see http://marc.info/?l=linux-fsdevel&m=149327990608749&w=2
>>
>
> Perhaps you meant this:
> https://marc.info/?l=linux-fsdevel&m=149328358909709&w=2
>
> There does not seem to be much objections to adding the flag,
> so hopefully, we can merge it for v.12 and filesystems and consumers
> will pick it up whenever.

Ok, thanks.

Then i will need to wait untill your patches is merged and then resent 
updated patch to avoid merge race condition.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1634184 — Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] fs: ubifs: set s_uuid in super block

On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 1:03 AM, Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at> wrote:
> Am 24.04.2017 um 17:47 schrieb Richard Weinberger:
>>> So, if some flag should be implemented, who should do it? :)
>>
>> I'll not do it for you. ;)
>
> Please also see http://marc.info/?l=linux-fsdevel&m=149327990608749&w=2
>

Richard,

Considering the facts that:
1. I proposed the said flag and Al didn't think it was needed [1]
2. ext4 already sets s_uuid without any flag for a long time now
3. A similar patch was queued for v4.12 to set s_uuid for xfs without any flag

I think it would be right to take Oleksij's patch as is.

FYI, my current work on 'constant inode numbers for overlayfs' requires that
underlying filesystem had set a non-zero s_uuid. Not sure if that matters for
ubifs+overlayfs users.

Amir.

[1] https://marc.info/?l=linux-unionfs&m=149352864527985&w=2

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1634192 — Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] fs: ubifs: set s_uuid in super block

Amir,

Am 02.05.2017 um 09:19 schrieb Amir Goldstein:
> On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 1:03 AM, Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at> wrote:
>> Am 24.04.2017 um 17:47 schrieb Richard Weinberger:
>>>> So, if some flag should be implemented, who should do it? :)
>>>
>>> I'll not do it for you. ;)
>>
>> Please also see http://marc.info/?l=linux-fsdevel&m=149327990608749&w=2
>>
> 
> Richard,
> 
> Considering the facts that:
> 1. I proposed the said flag and Al didn't think it was needed [1]
> 2. ext4 already sets s_uuid without any flag for a long time now
> 3. A similar patch was queued for v4.12 to set s_uuid for xfs without any flag
> 
> I think it would be right to take Oleksij's patch as is.
> 
> FYI, my current work on 'constant inode numbers for overlayfs' requires that
> underlying filesystem had set a non-zero s_uuid. Not sure if that matters for
> ubifs+overlayfs users.

If VFS maintainers are fine with that, I'll take it.
From UBIFS' POV it does not matter much. :-)

Thanks
//richard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1637856 — Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] fs: ubifs: set s_uuid in super block

On 05/02/2017 09:37 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Amir,
>
> Am 02.05.2017 um 09:19 schrieb Amir Goldstein:
>> On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 1:03 AM, Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at> wrote:
>>> Am 24.04.2017 um 17:47 schrieb Richard Weinberger:
>>>>> So, if some flag should be implemented, who should do it? :)
>>>>
>>>> I'll not do it for you. ;)
>>>
>>> Please also see http://marc.info/?l=linux-fsdevel&m=149327990608749&w=2
>>>
>>
>> Richard,
>>
>> Considering the facts that:
>> 1. I proposed the said flag and Al didn't think it was needed [1]
>> 2. ext4 already sets s_uuid without any flag for a long time now
>> 3. A similar patch was queued for v4.12 to set s_uuid for xfs without any flag
>>
>> I think it would be right to take Oleksij's patch as is.
>>
>> FYI, my current work on 'constant inode numbers for overlayfs' requires that
>> underlying filesystem had set a non-zero s_uuid. Not sure if that matters for
>> ubifs+overlayfs users.
>
> If VFS maintainers are fine with that, I'll take it.
> From UBIFS' POV it does not matter much. :-)

Ping to VFS maintainers?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1637880 — Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] fs: ubifs: set s_uuid in super block

On 05/09/2017 07:37 AM, Amir Goldstein wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 7:13 AM, Oleksij Rempel <ore@pengutronix.de
> <mailto:ore@pengutronix.de>> wrote:
>
>
>
>     On 05/02/2017 09:37 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>
>         Amir,
>
>         Am 02.05.2017 um 09:19 schrieb Amir Goldstein:
>
>             On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 1:03 AM, Richard Weinberger
>             <richard@nod.at <mailto:richard@nod.at>> wrote:
>
>                 Am 24.04.2017 um 17:47 schrieb Richard Weinberger:
>
>                         So, if some flag should be implemented, who
>                         should do it? :)
>
>
>                     I'll not do it for you. ;)
>
>
>                 Please also see
>                 http://marc.info/?l=linux-fsdevel&m=149327990608749&w=2
>                 <http://marc.info/?l=linux-fsdevel&m=149327990608749&w=2>
>
>
>             Richard,
>
>             Considering the facts that:
>             1. I proposed the said flag and Al didn't think it was
>             needed [1]
>             2. ext4 already sets s_uuid without any flag for a long time now
>             3. A similar patch was queued for v4.12 to set s_uuid for
>             xfs without any flag
>
>             I think it would be right to take Oleksij's patch as is.
>
>             FYI, my current work on 'constant inode numbers for
>             overlayfs' requires that
>             underlying filesystem had set a non-zero s_uuid. Not sure if
>             that matters for
>             ubifs+overlayfs users.
>
>
>         If VFS maintainers are fine with that, I'll take it.
>         From UBIFS' POV it does not matter much. :-)
>
>
>     Ping to VFS maintainers?
>
>
> What ping? Al made it clear that a flag is not needed.
> BTW, xfs s_uuid patch was merged to master.


I'm talking about ubifs patch.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1637911 — Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] fs: ubifs: set s_uuid in super block

On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 10:01 AM, Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at> wrote:
>
> Oleksij,
>
> Am 09.05.2017 um 07:52 schrieb Oleksij Rempel:
> >>
> >>         If VFS maintainers are fine with that, I'll take it.
> >>         From UBIFS' POV it does not matter much. :-)
> >>
> >>
> >>     Ping to VFS maintainers?
> >>
> >>
> >> What ping? Al made it clear that a flag is not needed.
> >> BTW, xfs s_uuid patch was merged to master.
> >
> >
> > I'm talking about ubifs patch.

Me too.

>
> Then we can queue this patch for 4.13.
> Please resend and make sure it addresses everything what was also
> suggested for the xfs s_uuid patch.
>

Just to be clear, the xfs s_uuid patch is just a memcpy,
no different from Oleksij's patch.

Thanks,
Amir.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1637929 — Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] fs: ubifs: set s_uuid in super block

On 05/09/2017 09:08 AM, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 10:01 AM, Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at> wrote:
>>
>> Oleksij,
>>
>> Am 09.05.2017 um 07:52 schrieb Oleksij Rempel:
>>>>
>>>>         If VFS maintainers are fine with that, I'll take it.
>>>>         From UBIFS' POV it does not matter much. :-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     Ping to VFS maintainers?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What ping? Al made it clear that a flag is not needed.
>>>> BTW, xfs s_uuid patch was merged to master.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm talking about ubifs patch.
>
> Me too.

:) ok

>>
>> Then we can queue this patch for 4.13.
>> Please resend and make sure it addresses everything what was also
>> suggested for the xfs s_uuid patch.
>>
>
> Just to be clear, the xfs s_uuid patch is just a memcpy,
> no different from Oleksij's patch.

So, should i change something?

here is the patch:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9674817/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1637930 — Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] fs: ubifs: set s_uuid in super block

Amir,

Am 09.05.2017 um 09:08 schrieb Amir Goldstein:
>> Then we can queue this patch for 4.13.
>> Please resend and make sure it addresses everything what was also
>> suggested for the xfs s_uuid patch.
>>
> 
> Just to be clear, the xfs s_uuid patch is just a memcpy,
> no different from Oleksij's patch.

Wasn't there a huge discussion about LE/BE/uniqueness and more details
on UUID that hurt my brain.

Thanks,
//richard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1637957 — Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] fs: ubifs: set s_uuid in super block

On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at> wrote:
> Amir,
>
> Am 09.05.2017 um 09:08 schrieb Amir Goldstein:
>>> Then we can queue this patch for 4.13.
>>> Please resend and make sure it addresses everything what was also
>>> suggested for the xfs s_uuid patch.
>>>
>>
>> Just to be clear, the xfs s_uuid patch is just a memcpy,
>> no different from Oleksij's patch.

See upstream commit
8f720d9 xfs: publish UUID in struct super_block


>
> Wasn't there a huge discussion about LE/BE/uniqueness and more details
> on UUID that hurt my brain.
>

LE/BE discussions are more about which variants of uuid helpers should be
created, among other things, for consumers of s_uuid to check that s_uuid
was filled by fs.
Converting s_uuid type to uuid_t or whatever is for the far future.

uniqueness of s_uuid does not exist with current filesystems,
so no reason whatsoever to act differently with ubifs.
Fixing uniqueness of s_uuid (if at all is needed) is a future VFS task.

Bottom line, for Oleksij's original patch:

Reviewed-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>

If it's not too late for 4.12 that could be nice, because then
ubifs+overlayfs would gain a new feature (constant inode numbers)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1637916 — Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] fs: ubifs: set s_uuid in super block

Oleksij,

Am 09.05.2017 um 07:52 schrieb Oleksij Rempel:
>>
>>         If VFS maintainers are fine with that, I'll take it.
>>         From UBIFS' POV it does not matter much. :-)
>>
>>
>>     Ping to VFS maintainers?
>>
>>
>> What ping? Al made it clear that a flag is not needed.
>> BTW, xfs s_uuid patch was merged to master.
> 
> 
> I'm talking about ubifs patch.

Then we can queue this patch for 4.13.
Please resend and make sure it addresses everything what was also
suggested for the xfs s_uuid patch.

Thanks,
//richard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1634188 — Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] fs: ubifs: set s_uuid in super block

On Tue, 2017-04-11 at 22:43 +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Makes sense.
> 
> Artem, do you remember why UBIFS didn't set s_uuid in first place?

Just did not notice it I think.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1621111 — [PATCH v2 2/3] fs: ubifs: update i_version on inode changes

increment i_version to notify security/IMA about changes
made in inode.

Signed-off-by: Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@pengutronix.de>
---
 fs/ubifs/file.c | 9 +++++++++
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)

diff --git a/fs/ubifs/file.c b/fs/ubifs/file.c
index d9ae86f96df7..29213724259b 100644
--- a/fs/ubifs/file.c
+++ b/fs/ubifs/file.c
@@ -1104,6 +1104,8 @@ static void do_attr_changes(struct inode *inode, const struct iattr *attr)
 			mode &= ~S_ISGID;
 		inode->i_mode = mode;
 	}
+	if (IS_I_VERSION(inode))
+		inode_inc_iversion(inode);
 }
 
 /**
@@ -1401,6 +1403,9 @@ int ubifs_update_time(struct inode *inode, struct timespec *time,
 	if (!(inode->i_sb->s_flags & MS_LAZYTIME))
 		iflags |= I_DIRTY_SYNC;
 
+	if (IS_I_VERSION(inode))
+		inode_inc_iversion(inode);
+
 	release = ui->dirty;
 	__mark_inode_dirty(inode, iflags);
 	mutex_unlock(&ui->ui_mutex);
@@ -1435,6 +1440,8 @@ static int update_mctime(struct inode *inode)
 
 		mutex_lock(&ui->ui_mutex);
 		inode->i_mtime = inode->i_ctime = ubifs_current_time(inode);
+		if (IS_I_VERSION(inode))
+			inode_inc_iversion(inode);
 		release = ui->dirty;
 		mark_inode_dirty_sync(inode);
 		mutex_unlock(&ui->ui_mutex);
@@ -1580,6 +1587,8 @@ static int ubifs_vm_page_mkwrite(struct vm_fault *vmf)
 
 		mutex_lock(&ui->ui_mutex);
 		inode->i_mtime = inode->i_ctime = ubifs_current_time(inode);
+		if (IS_I_VERSION(inode))
+			inode_inc_iversion(inode);
 		release = ui->dirty;
 		mark_inode_dirty_sync(inode);
 		mutex_unlock(&ui->ui_mutex);
-- 
2.11.0

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web