linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/4] pass open file to ->setattr()

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <E1IJNEX-0000Tt-00@dorka.pomaz.szeredi.hu>
Date:	Fri, 10 Aug 2007 07:40:25 +0200
From:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To:	7eggert@....de
CC:	bfields@...ldses.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, viro@....linux.org.uk,
	hch@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/4] pass open file to ->setattr()

> >> > This is needed to be able to correctly implement open-unlink-fsetattr
> >> > semantics in some filesystem such as sshfs, without having to resort
> >> > to "silly-renaming".
> >> 
> >> How do you plan to do that?
> > 
> > Easy: the SFTP protocol has stateful opens and defines an FSTAT call.
> 
> Is it possible to reconnect without umounting?

Yes, but open files and in-progress requests are lost at reconnect.

> If yes, the unlinked files would be lost in spite of being opened,
> wouldn't they?

Sure.  Obviously one of the drawbacks of a stateful protocol is that
the server state can't survive a reconnect.

But that sort of reliability has never been the goal of sshfs.  And
even if that was needed, it could probably be much better handled in a
lower layer.

Miklos
-
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/