linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] lockd: convert reclaimer thread to kthread interface

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

Message-Id: <1225826781.30407.11.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org>
Date:	Tue, 04 Nov 2008 14:26:21 -0500
From:	Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no>
To:	Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	hch@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lockd: convert reclaimer thread to kthread interface

On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 13:42 -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> While we're on the subject of signals...
> 
> Do you have any thoughts/objections to just making the reclaimer thread
> ignore them altogether? That would simplify the code a bit.

How does the administrator then get out of the situation where the
server dies (permanently) in the middle of a reclaim?

Forced unmounts won't help here, since they only signal the NFS
requests, and are in any case per-filesystem, not per-server.

I suppose one could use soft RPC calls, but what should the retry policy
be for that case?

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/