[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2003787.1595585999@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2020 11:19:59 +0100
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>, nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com,
Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>,
Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>, andres@...razel.de,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>, dray@...hat.com,
Karel Zak <kzak@...hat.com>, keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
LSM <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/17] watch_queue: Implement mount topology and attribute change notifications [ver #5]
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> wrote:
> > What guarantees that mount_id is going to remain a 32bit entity?
>
> You think it likely we'd have >4 billion concurrent mounts on a system? That
> would require >1.2TiB of RAM just for the struct mount allocations.
>
> But I can expand it to __u64.
That said, sys_name_to_handle_at() assumes it's a 32-bit signed integer, so
we're currently limited to ~2 billion concurrent mounts:-/
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists