linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] autofs - fix AT_NO

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: <1be75afb-8702-d60c-5ecb-10ddd2edc062@themaw.net>
Date:   Wed, 29 Nov 2017 10:28:56 +0800
From:   Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>
To:     Mike Marion <mmarion@...lcomm.com>, NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>
Cc:     autofs mailing list <autofs@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] autofs - fix AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT not being honored

On 29/11/17 10:13, Mike Marion wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 12:17:27PM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> 
>> How big do people see /proc/self/mount* getting?  What size reads
>> does 'strace' show the various programs using to read it?
> 
> We already have line counts into 5 figures.  This wasn't an issue until 
> the change of /etc/mtab to a link.  The large count is due to our large
> direct automount maps.
> 

And, admittedly, the testing I was doing was with 15k+ size maps.

Of course it's necessary to have this number of mounts to see serious
problems which is easiest to do with large direct mount maps.

The thing that's different now is that before applications started
using /proc directly for mount table information using mount(2)
instead of mount(8) was enough to prevent the mount entries from
being added to the table seen by applications.

Ian