[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1249411815.2361.26.camel@dhcp231-106.rdu.redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 14:50:15 -0400
From: Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>
To: John Stoffel <john@...ffel.org>
Cc: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu,
Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@...hos.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"malware-list@...sg.printk.net" <malware-list@...sg.printk.net>,
"greg@...ah.com" <greg@...ah.com>,
"jcm@...hat.com" <jcm@...hat.com>,
Douglas Leeder <douglas.leeder@...hos.com>,
"tytso@....edu" <tytso@....edu>,
"arjan@...radead.org" <arjan@...radead.org>,
"david@...g.hm" <david@...g.hm>,
"jengelh@...ozas.de" <jengelh@...ozas.de>,
"aviro@...hat.com" <aviro@...hat.com>,
"mrkafk@...il.com" <mrkafk@...il.com>,
"alexl@...hat.com" <alexl@...hat.com>,
"jack@...e.cz" <jack@...e.cz>,
"a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl" <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
"hch@...radead.org" <hch@...radead.org>,
"alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk" <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
"mmorley@....in" <mmorley@....in>, "pavel@...e.cz" <pavel@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: fanotify - overall design before I start sending patches
On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 14:20 -0400, John Stoffel wrote:
> >>>>> "Valdis" == Valdis Kletnieks <Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu> writes:
>
> Valdis> On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 12:27:48 EDT, Eric Paris said:
> >> On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 17:09 +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> >> > Would it make more sense to deny on timeouts and then evict? I am thinking it
> >> > would be more secure with no significant drawbacks. Also for usages like HSM
> >> > allowing it without data being in place might present wrong content to the
> >> > user.
> >>
> >> I'd be willing to go that route as long as noone else complains.
>
> Valdis> Yes, in my world, "deny on timeout and evict" is the better
> Valdis> design decision. For an HSM, you'd rather have a
> Valdis> quick-and-ugly death on a failed file open than an app
> Valdis> accidentally reading the HSM's stub data thinking it's the
> Valdis> original data.
>
> Speaking as somone who is working slowly to deploy an HSM service, one
> thing to note is that when you *do* see the stub file contents, you
> know that your HSM is busted somehow.
>
> How will fanotify deal with this issue? Sorry, I haven't paid enough
> attention to this thread though I know I should since it's up my $WORK
> alley.
fanotify doesn't explicitly deal with it at all. If the HSM implemented
as a fanotify listener starts to misbehave and not respond, processes
will start to get EACCES. If it misses 10 in a row it'll be evicted and
processes will start to see the stubs.
-Eric
--
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