[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87oc0vdd2v.fsf@tucsk.pomaz.szeredi.hu>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 12:59:20 +0200
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To: "J. R. Okajima" <hooanon05@...oo.co.jp>
Cc: Erez Zadok <ezk@....cs.sunysb.edu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"viro\@ZenIV.linux.org.uk Viro" <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
apw@...onical.com, nbd@...nwrt.org, neilb@...e.de,
hramrach@...trum.cz, jordipujolp@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] overlay filesystem: request for inclusion
"J. R. Okajima" <hooanon05@...oo.co.jp> writes:
> Miklos Szeredi:
>> Here's a patch to limit stacking overlayfs instances on top of each
>> other and on ecryptfs to prevent kernel stack overflow.
>
> I don't think it a good idea to introduce such new member to generic
> struct super_block.
> - the new member is unrelated to most of other fs.
> - ecryptfs already rejects such nests by checking
> (sb->s_type == &ecryptfs_fs_type).
> Instead I'd suggest you to introduce a new small test function,
> something like
> int test_nested(sb)
> {
> return sb->s_magic == ECRYPTFS_SUPER_MAGIC
> || sb->s_type == &ovl_fs_type;
> }
I don't want to prevent stacking completely, only limit it. And the
only sane way to do that is with a counter in super_block.
Thanks,
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