[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK9i0=ojVmbuDiFXY_sHA12vTWgz9aKwEQuZmmYtUka3zqr=hg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 04:07:03 +0100
From: Jann Horn <jannhorn@...glemail.com>
To: Nikhilesh Reddy <reddyn@...eaurora.org>
Cc: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
fuse-devel <fuse-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger@...il.com>,
"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, jack@...e.cz,
Antonio SJ Musumeci <trapexit@...wn.link>, sven.utcke@....de,
Nikolaus Rath <nikolaus@...h.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fuse: Add support for fuse stacked I/O
2016-01-14 0:53 GMT+01:00 Nikhilesh Reddy <reddyn@...eaurora.org>:
> Add support for filesystem stacked read/write of files
> when enabled through a userspace init option of FUSE_STACKED_IO.
>
> When FUSE_STACKED_IO is enabled all the reads and writes
> to the fuse mount point go directly to the native filesystem
> rather than through the fuse daemon. All requests that aren't
> read/write still go thought the userspace code.
Maybe I missed it, but how does this guard against kernel stack
overflow and how does it interact with the "sb->s_stack_depth >
FILESYSTEM_MAX_STACK_DEPTH" stacking limit that overlayfs and ecryptfs
use?
As far as I can tell from a quick glance, someone could just stack
lots of FUSE files on top of each other and cause kernel stack
overflow that way, and that's nasty.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists