[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <84144f020703170353y4490d0dcr24352c291c96300b@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 12:53:37 +0200
From: "Pekka Enberg" <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To: "Mike Snitzer" <snitzer@...il.com>
Cc: "Jeremy Fitzhardinge" <jeremy@...p.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: forced umount?
On 3/17/07, Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...il.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the heads up; its good to see that Pekka Enberg's work has
> continued. I actually stumbled onto that line of work earlier while
> searching for more info on Tigran Aivazian's forced unmount (badfs)
> patches:
> http://lwn.net/Articles/192632/
FYI, the revoke implementation have since been changed to follow the
badfs-style approach of the forced unmount patches. However, there are
some problems with the forced unmount patches that are now fixed in
the revoke implementation:
- You can't use munmap() to take down shared memory mappings because the
application can accidentally remap something completely different
to that region.
- The ->f_light bits slow down other fget_light() users and there's
a race between
fcheck_files() and set_f_light().
- The operation can live-lock if a malicious process keeps forking. The revoke
implementation solves this by revoking in two passes: (1) take
down the descriptors
and (2) take down the actual inodes.
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