[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAOQ4uxhT_=Ot8tuCr6wAOTOZGhyR52CsqoCgJJ2Za_WUGRauvg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 08:47:40 +0200
From: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>
To: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux NFS Mailing List <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Lennart Poettering <lennart@...ttering.net>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...tuozzo.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] fs/notify: don't put file handle buffer on stack.
On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 8:04 AM, NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com> wrote:
> A file handle buffer is not tiny, and could need to be larger in future,
> so it isn't safe to allocate one on the stack. Instead, we need to
> kmalloc().
>
> There is no way to return an error status from a ->show_fdinfo()
> function, so if the kmalloc fails, we silently exclude the filehandle
> from the output. As it is at the end of line, this shouldn't
> upset parsing too much.
I think that is a bold assumption to make about parsers ;)
Anyway, the second reasoning is stronger, so may as well drop this one.
There is probably a single userspace user for this which is CRIU,
for which this fdinfo file handle was added, so you could possibly say
that this change does not upset this user (?).
> In any case, it can only fail when the
> process is being killed by the OOM killer, so the file will never
> be parsed anyway.
>
> Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists