[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <45AB6F69.6030004@aitel.hist.no>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 13:11:21 +0100
From: Helge Hafting <helge.hafting@...el.hist.no>
To: Michael Tokarev <mjt@....msk.ru>
CC: Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>,
dean gaudet <dean@...tic.org>, Viktor <vvp01@...ox.ru>,
Aubrey <aubreylee@...il.com>, Hua Zhong <hzhong@...il.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
hch@...radead.org, kenneth.w.chen@...el.com, akpm@...l.org
Subject: Re: O_DIRECT question
Michael Tokarev wrote:
> Chris Mason wrote:
> []
>
>> I recently spent some time trying to integrate O_DIRECT locking with
>> page cache locking. The basic theory is that instead of using
>> semaphores for solving O_DIRECT vs buffered races, you put something
>> into the radix tree (I call it a placeholder) to keep the page cache
>> users out, and lock any existing pages that are present.
>>
>
> But seriously - what about just disallowing non-O_DIRECT opens together
> with O_DIRECT ones ?
>
Please do not create a new local DOS attack.
I open some important file, say /etc/resolv.conf
with O_DIRECT and just sit on the open handle.
Now nobody else can open that file because
it is "busy" with O_DIRECT ?
Helge Hafting
-
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