linux-kernel - Re: [patch 0/9] extended fdinfo via procfs series, v7

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: <20120823135234.GE29943@fieldses.org>
Date:	Thu, 23 Aug 2012 09:52:34 -0400
From:	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
To:	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>,
	James Bottomley <jbottomley@...allels.com>,
	Matthew Helsley <matt.helsley@...il.com>,
	aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [patch 0/9] extended fdinfo via procfs series, v7

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 04:44:27PM +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 08:23:18AM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 02:43:23PM +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> > > Hi guys,
> > > 
> > > here is updated version of the fdinfo via procfs series,
> > > the changes from previous one are the following
> > > 
> > >  - fhandle is carried inside inotify mark but this feature
> > >    is CONFIG dependent to not bloat the kernel for users
> > >    who don't need it
> > 
> > As Al points out, this doesn't help much: if this feature is something a
> > distro will want to provide, then in practice all their users are
> > eventually going to end up with it turned on.
> > 
> 
> Yes, I remember what Al has said, the problem is that this data attached
> to inotify mark is not just a couple of bytes but rather about 136 bytes
> per mark, and encoding this fhandle will take some cycles on mark creation
> as well. Thus when in a sake of c/r we simply have no other way and are
> to pay some trade off cost for c/r functionality, i don't think the
> regular users (and note that CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE is off by default)
> should pay same cost for nothing. That's why I made it config dependant.
> Again if you still think that making it config-option is a bad idea I'll
> rip this symbols off, it's not a problem.

I don't have any opinion on whether there should be a configuration
option.  Just want to make sure the cost when it's turned on is still
taken seriously.

--b.

> 
> > Could you quantify the cost somehow?
> > 
> 
> About 136 bytes per inotify mark.
> 
> > I wonder if you could get away with something less than MAX_HANDLE_SIZE?
> > 128 bytes is the maximum allowable by NFSv4.  In practice I don't think
> > any of our filesystems need more than 40 or so right now.
> 
> Look, Bruce, I would like to follow the limits we have #define'd in kernel,
> because it makes code easier to support. I can #define some limit for
> inotify fhandle but what should I print in fdinfo if say there is no
> space left in buffer?
> 
> 	Cyrill
--
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/