[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJfpegt-2s5v_X9j9wfLwyHNN-FrDjor4R9wM-AgwXdqYWCsYA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 16:16:04 +0100
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>,
"linux-unionfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-unionfs@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...chiereds.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9] overlay: fix inconsistency of ro file after copy-up
On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> This is one hell of a DoS vector - it's really easy to eat tons of struct
> file that way. Preparatory parts of that series make sense on their own,
> but your "let's allocate a struct file, call ->open() and schedule that
> struct file for closing upon the exit to userland on each kernel_read()"
> is not.
Found a couple of instances of this pattern (haven't looked very hard,
possibly there's more):
nfsd_read()
cachefiles_write_page()
How come this hasn't been a problem for them?
Would flush_delayed_fput() work here? I couldn't really find what the
locking issues with synchronous fputs were.
Thanks,
Miklos
Powered by blists - more mailing lists