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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2014 12:45:52 +0200 From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.debian@....de>, "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>, Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, John McCutchan <john@...nmccutchan.com>, Robert Love <rlove@...ve.org>, Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>, Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>, Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>, Andrey Vagin <avagin@...nvz.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: don't remove inotify watchers from alive inode-s (v2) On Thu 25-09-14 10:30:10, Jan Kara wrote: > On Wed 24-09-14 13:19:47, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 12:51:55 +0200 Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> wrote: > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > Andrew, what do you think about the patch below? Al objected that it > > > changes userspace visible behavior some time ago and then he didn't react > > > to our explanations... > > > > Difficult situation. There's some really important information missing > > from the changelog: > > > > - Who cares? Is there some real application which is hurting from > > the current situation? If so, who, what, how and why. If not, then > > why change anything? > I believe Openvz guys hit this in their application but I'll defer to > them for more details. > > > - A description of the userspace API change impact. How did the > > interface change? What is the risk of this change causing damage to > > real applications? > I believe this was covered in the changelog. Without the patch depending > on the order of unlinks for hardlinked file you sometimes get events: > 4 (IN_ATTRIB) > 400 (IN_DELETE_SELF) > 8000 (IN_IGNORED) > > and sometimes you get events: > 4 (IN_ATTRIB) > <possibly more events happening for unlinked file> > 8 (IN_CLOSE_WRITE) > 400 (IN_DELETE_SELF) > 8000 (IN_IGNORED) > > With the patch you'll always have the second case. So without the patch you > don't receive some events if the file has at least 2 hardlinks and then > gets unlinked. I think the risk that some application relies on *not* getting > those events is pretty low (especially since in the common case of file > without hardlinks you will get all those events). Ping Andrew? Do you still need more info or are you now OK to merge the patch? Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> SUSE Labs, CR -- 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