linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 00/15] NFSd state containerization

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <50ADDCB4.2050603@parallels.com>
Date:	Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:05:08 +0400
From:	Stanislav Kinsbursky <skinsbursky@...allels.com>
To:	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
CC:	Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>, <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
	<devel@...nvz.org>, <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 00/15] NFSd state containerization

22.11.2012 00:44, J. Bruce Fields пишет:
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 01:34:08PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 17:00:36 -0500
>> "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 06:20:59PM +0300, Stanislav Kinsbursky wrote:
>>>> This patch set is my first attempt to containerize NFSv4 state - i.e. make it
>>>> works in networks namespace context.
>>>> I admit, that some of this new code could be partially rewritten during future
>>>> NFSd containerization.
>>>> But the overall idea look more or less correct to me.
>>>> So, the main things here are:
>>>> 1) making nfs4_client network namespace aware.
>>>> 2) Allocating all hashes (except file_hashtbl and reclaim_str_hashtbl) per
>>>> network namespace context on NFSd start (not init) and destroying on NFSd
>>>> state shutdown.
>>>> 3) Allocating of reclaim_str_hashtbl on legacy tracker start and destroying on
>>>> legacy tracker stop.
>>>> 4) Moving of client_lru and close_lru lists to per-net data.
>>>> 5) Making lundromat network namespace aware.
>>>
>>> These look OK and pass my tests.  Jeff, do the revised recovery bits
>>> look OK?
>>>
>>> Have you done any testing?
>>>
>>> It'd be interesting, for example, to know if there are any pynfs that
>>> fail against the server in a non-init network namespace, but pass
>>> normally.
>>>
>>> --b.
>>>
>>
>> I looked over the patches and they look sane to me. I move that they go
>> into your -next branch to soak for a bit.
>
> Stanislav, actually, I'm unclear, since you labeled these "RFC": do you
> consider these patches ready?
>

Yes, I consider them ready.
I added the "RFC" mark, because I'm not completely sure, this this code wont' be
partially rewritten in future.

> --b.
>


-- 
Best regards,
Stanislav Kinsbursky
--
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/