linux-kernel - Re: Grace period

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: <1333988226.2688.76.camel@lade.trondhjem.org>
Date:	Mon, 9 Apr 2012 16:17:06 +0000
From:	"Myklebust, Trond" <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>
To:	"bfields@...ldses.org" <bfields@...ldses.org>
CC:	Stanislav Kinsbursky <skinsbursky@...allels.com>,
	Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>,
	"linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Grace period

On Mon, 2012-04-09 at 12:11 -0400, bfields@...ldses.org wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 08:08:57PM +0400, Stanislav Kinsbursky wrote:
> > 09.04.2012 19:27, Jeff Layton пишет:
> > >
> > >If you allow one container to hand out conflicting locks while another
> > >container is allowing reclaims, then you can end up with some very
> > >difficult to debug silent data corruption. That's the worst possible
> > >outcome, IMO. We really need to actively keep people from shooting
> > >themselves in the foot here.
> > >
> > >One possibility might be to only allow filesystems to be exported from
> > >a single container at a time (and allow that to be overridable somehow
> > >once we have a working active/active serving solution). With that, you
> > >may be able limp along with a per-container grace period handling
> > >scheme like you're proposing.
> > >
> > 
> > Ok then. Keeping people from shooting themselves here sounds reasonable.
> > And I like the idea of exporting a filesystem only from once per
> > network namespace.
> 
> Unfortunately that's not going to get us very far, especially not in the
> v4 case where we've got the common read-only pseudoroot that everyone
> has to share.

I don't see how that can work in cases where each container has its own
private mount namespace. You're going to have to tie that pseudoroot to
the mount namespace somehow.

-- 
Trond Myklebust
Linux NFS client maintainer

NetApp
Trond.Myklebust@...app.com
www.netapp.com