From: ebiederm-aS9lmoZGLiVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org (Eric W. Biederman)
To: "Denis V. Lunev" <den-3ImXcnM4P+0@public.gmane.org>
Cc: linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
marcus-sJr3legBufCzQB+pC5nmwQ@public.gmane.org,
containers-qjLDD68F18O7TbgM5vRIOg@public.gmane.org,
"Denis V. Lunev" <den-GEFAQzZX7r8dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>,
Andrew Morton
<akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] proc: Do not invalidate dentries with submounts
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 09:05:02 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <m17ijru7v5.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4757CF70.3020508-3ImXcnM4P+0@public.gmane.org> (Denis V. Lunev's message of "Thu, 06 Dec 2007 13:31:12 +0300")
"Denis V. Lunev" <den-3ImXcnM4P+0@public.gmane.org> writes:
> you have changed the behavior of revalidation by shadows. I think it
> will be better to restore it and keep new one for shadows (and below)
> only, which has been done by my yesterday patch.
- I think it is better to move forward rather then back.
- The old proc dentry caching behavior is actually too aggressive, and has
problem corner cases. Keeping the dentries when we have something mounted
on top is a trade off that is the least of two evils.
- My change fixes the mount leak on all of /proc not just on /proc/generic.
What you did is a hack that restored the old slightly buggy behavior. Which
is fine if we can't find anything better. It is not code that is on the
path towards a /proc that properly caches it's dentries.
With the old behavior a random user space application can open a file or
a directory in /proc pinning it's dcache entry. Then the module supplying
that open file can be removed and reinserted. Until the user space application
removes reference to that /proc file all you will be able to find is the
version of the file from before /proc was removed.
That sounds like a way to trigger nasty behavior to me. I would like
to remove that possibility from the kernel if I can.
Eric
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: "Denis V. Lunev" <den@sw.ru>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
marcus@better.se, containers@lists.osdl.org, devel@openvz.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Denis V. Lunev" <den@openvz.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] proc: Do not invalidate dentries with submounts
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 09:05:02 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <m17ijru7v5.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4757CF70.3020508@sw.ru> (Denis V. Lunev's message of "Thu, 06 Dec 2007 13:31:12 +0300")
"Denis V. Lunev" <den@sw.ru> writes:
> you have changed the behavior of revalidation by shadows. I think it
> will be better to restore it and keep new one for shadows (and below)
> only, which has been done by my yesterday patch.
- I think it is better to move forward rather then back.
- The old proc dentry caching behavior is actually too aggressive, and has
problem corner cases. Keeping the dentries when we have something mounted
on top is a trade off that is the least of two evils.
- My change fixes the mount leak on all of /proc not just on /proc/generic.
What you did is a hack that restored the old slightly buggy behavior. Which
is fine if we can't find anything better. It is not code that is on the
path towards a /proc that properly caches it's dentries.
With the old behavior a random user space application can open a file or
a directory in /proc pinning it's dcache entry. Then the module supplying
that open file can be removed and reinserted. Until the user space application
removes reference to that /proc file all you will be able to find is the
version of the file from before /proc was removed.
That sounds like a way to trigger nasty behavior to me. I would like
to remove that possibility from the kernel if I can.
Eric
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-12-06 16:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-12-05 14:35 [PATCH] lost content of /proc/sys/fs/binfmt_misc Denis V. Lunev
2007-12-05 14:35 ` Denis V. Lunev
2007-12-06 10:17 ` Eric W. Biederman
2007-12-06 10:22 ` [PATCH] proc: Do not invalidate dentries with submounts Eric W. Biederman
2007-12-06 10:31 ` Denis V. Lunev
[not found] ` <4757CF70.3020508-3ImXcnM4P+0@public.gmane.org>
2007-12-06 16:05 ` Eric W. Biederman [this message]
2007-12-06 16:05 ` Eric W. Biederman
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=m17ijru7v5.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com \
--to=ebiederm-as9lmozglivwk0htik3j/w@public.gmane.org \
--cc=akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org \
--cc=containers-qjLDD68F18O7TbgM5vRIOg@public.gmane.org \
--cc=den-3ImXcnM4P+0@public.gmane.org \
--cc=den-GEFAQzZX7r8dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org \
--cc=linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=marcus-sJr3legBufCzQB+pC5nmwQ@public.gmane.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.