linux-kernel - RE: recent nfs change causes autofs regression

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 31 Aug 2007 13:09:16 +0800 (WST)
From:	Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>
To:	Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no>
cc:	Hua Zhong <hzhong@...il.com>,
	'Linux Kernel Mailing List' <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	'Linus Torvalds' <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: RE: recent nfs change causes autofs regression

On Fri, 31 Aug 2007, Trond Myklebust wrote:

> On Thu, 2007-08-30 at 16:44 -0700, Hua Zhong wrote:
> > > How is the NFS client to know that these directories are disjoint, or
> > > that no-one will ever create a hard link from one directory to another?
> > > To my knowledge, the only way to ensure this is to put them on
> > > different disk partitions.
> > > 
> > > I don't know if all Unix systems have this issue, but I have been told
> > > that Solaris at least has it.
> > 
> > Does Solaris enforces this "mount with same options" as default?
> 
> No. Solaris defaults to breaking cache consistency.
> 
> > > > "working" as in "I can mount the directory and do my work". And there
> > > > has never been any problems as far as I know.
> > > 
> > > That is too narrow a definition: the minimum should be "everyone can
> > > mount their directories and do their work". Your particular setup may
> > > be safe, but that is why we have overrides: the default should be for the
> > > kernel to be conservative, and to _tell_ users what it thinks is wrong.
> > 
> > Every engineer in our organization mounts it too. No problem until now.
> 
> I believe I've already explained why that isn't a sufficient metric.
> What is your point?
> 
> > It's not very conservative to suddenly change default behavior and break
> > autofs mounts. There is not even one kernel message that "_tells_ user why
> > it thinks it's wrong". It just silently fails.
> 
> No it doesn't. It reports an error code to the caller. If autofs is
> failing silently, then that is a bug in autofs: mount will report the
> error to the user.

Actually, yes, it looks like I'm not logging mount errors at the correct 
log level. Oops.

Ian

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