[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0801091340270.29244@fbirervta.pbzchgretzou.qr>
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 13:45:09 +0100 (CET)
From: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...putergmbh.de>
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
cc: haveblue@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hch@...radead.org,
serue@...ibm.com, viro@....linux.org.uk, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
kzak@...hat.com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
containers@...ts.osdl.org, util-linux-ng@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 5/9] unprivileged mounts: allow unprivileged bind mounts
On Jan 8 2008 20:08, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>> On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 12:35 +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>> > +static int reserve_user_mount(void)
>> > +{
>> > + int err = 0;
>> > +
>> > + spin_lock(&vfsmount_lock);
>> > + if (nr_user_mounts >= max_user_mounts && !capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
>> > + err = -EPERM;
>> > + else
>> > + nr_user_mounts++;
>> > + spin_unlock(&vfsmount_lock);
>> > + return err;
>> > +}
>>
>> Would -ENOSPC or -ENOMEM be a more descriptive error here?
>
>The logic behind EPERM, is that this failure is only for unprivileged
>callers. ENOMEM is too specifically about OOM. It could be changed
>to ENOSPC, ENFILE, EMFILE, or it could remain EPERM. What do others
>think?
ENOSPC: No space remaining on device => 'wth'.
ENOMEM: I usually think of a userspace OOM (e.g. malloc'ed out all of your
32-bit address space on 32-bit processes)
EMFILE: "Too many open files"
ENFILE: "Too many open files in system".
ENFILE seems like a temporary winner among these four.
Back in the old days, when the number of mounts was limited in Linux,
what error value did it return? That one could be used.
--
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