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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Thu, 30 Aug 2007 19:37:50 -0400
From:	Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no>
To:	Hua Zhong <hzhong@...il.com>
Cc:	'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 Thu, 2007-08-30 at 16:30 -0700, Hua Zhong wrote:

> There are two disjoint directories. I am wondering why there would be cache
> coherency issues in this case? Is this Linus nfs implementation specific or
> all other Unix systems all have the same issue?

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.

> > If you know what you are doing, then there is an option which allows
> > you to override the default behaviour.
> > 
> > > More importantly, it is a regression. My understanding is that unless
> > > absolutely necessary we do not introduce a "feature" that breaks
> > > working setups.
> > 
> > Your turn to define what you mean by "working"? In my book that means
> > "a setup that doesn't include unexpected or unintended behaviour".
> 
> "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.

> > Not being able to notice cache coherency failures on a file that is
> > mounted in two different places with two different sets of mount
> > options counts as "unexpected behaviour".
> > 
> > Not being able to notice that your mount options have been overridden
> > by the kernel also counts as "unexpected behaviour".
> 
> Fine. These are all very nice theories, but I just want to report this
> regression and hope it won't cause any big problems for any users out there.
> In the mean time, I am returning to 2.6.22.

Your choice.

Trond

-
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/