| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <E1Kvpgo-00045l-GU@pomaz-ex.szeredi.hu> Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 09:49:06 +0100 From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu> To: ncunningham@...a.org.au CC: stern@...land.harvard.edu, linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, miklos@...redi.hu Subject: Re: [linux-pm] Freezer: Don't count threads waiting for frozen filesystems. On Fri, 31 Oct 2008, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > I'm not sure that's true. You see, I'm thinking of this as not that > different to the problem of unmounting filesystems. There, too, we need > to unmount in a particular order, and let transactions on each > filesystem stop cleanly before we can unmount them. Even if there are > differences, perhaps looking at how we handle unmounting will help with > handling freezing. There's nothing magic about umount, it just uses a refcount on the fs. But umount changes the namespace, that's the big difference. For example if a process is accessing path P which has a component inside the mount, it _will_ get different results before and after the umount. This is not acceptable for freezing. For freezing to work with such a refcounting scheme, we'd have to count _future_ uses of the fs as well, not just current ones, which is obviously impossible. 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists