[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1153554099.5589.9.camel@ubuntu>
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 10:41:39 +0300
From: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Cc: alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk, tytso@....edu,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
tigran@...itas.com, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] revoke/frevoke system calls
Hi,
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 09:22:37 +0300 (EEST)
Pekka J Enberg <penberg@...Helsinki.FI> wrote:
> > There are alternatives, playing games with ->f_op, creating fake struct
> > file, and doing IS_REVOKED if-else in the paths, but I think this is by
> > far the simplest way to do it. So in the Andrew scale of sads, how
> > sad is it, exactly?-)
On Fri, 2006-07-21 at 23:59 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Sad enough. Certainly worth an if-else to fix.
Actually, we can fix it with file->f_light thing Tigran is doing:
http://developer.osdl.org/dev/fumount/kernel2/patches/2.6.12/1/forced-unmount-2.6.12-1.patch
On Fri, 2006-07-21 at 23:59 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Why is this approach so different from Tigran's, I wonder.
Not so different. I am blocking fork until I can revoke all open file
descriptors (i.e. substitute with NULL) whereas Tigran is dropping
tasklist_lock and retrying. I am not doing get_bad_file() because I
don't think we really need it. Tigran's mmap takedown code looks pretty
much what I want too.
On Fri, 2006-07-21 at 23:59 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> iirc, one of the things we added file.f_mapping for was revokation, but
> this patch doesn't use it. Please ask Al Viro about this.
I searched fsdevel archives but couldn't find anything on that. Al?
Pekka
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists