From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>,
Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC] revoke(2) and generic handling of things like remove_proc_entry()
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 00:29:13 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130411232913.GC4068@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <877gk8vlnp.fsf@xmission.com>
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 01:48:26PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Last time I was looking at this I was noticing that there is a lock
> (mmap_sem?) that is held over every ->vm_op->foo() call. If that is
> true today it should be possible to just grab that lock and change
> vm_ops. That makes for a very cheap and easy implementation, except for
> the covolutions needed for taking the lock.
3-rd party down_write(&mm->mmap_sem) is a Bloody Bad Idea(tm). VM locking is
complicated enough as it is and making it cope with such things would make it
even more convoluted.
> If we can do add useful support at the fs and mm layers without
> affecting performance I am all for it. I remember that tends to make
> things easier. As an alternative let me suggest what I had intended to
> do if/when I ever got back to working on revoke.
>
> Make a library like libfs that can be used for files that want to
> implement revoke support.
>
> In that library implement what can be implemented reliably and correctly
> and error on the sophisticated cases we can't support.
>
> With the semantics and the basic users figured out move what bits we can
> into the vfs or the mm subsystem to make things easier.
>
> With a library at the very least we have one implementation that we can
> debug and work with instead of a different implementation of revoke for
> each different kind of file.
Yecchh... revoke() as a syscall or revoke as something that happens when
kernel decides that file has gone away? The latter includes
procfs/debugfs/sysfs at the very least. Do we want to require all of those
to use that library? I would rather try to avoid a need for wrappers, TBH...
You have a very good point re ->close() - the locking conditions for it are
such that making revoke do it is extremely inconvenient. IMO it means that
mmap should check for attempts to set ->vm_op on vma with non-NULL
->vm_file->f_revoke and fail if it runs into such.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-04-11 23:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-04-05 4:29 [RFC] revoke(2) and generic handling of things like remove_proc_entry() Al Viro
2013-04-05 19:56 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2013-04-05 20:51 ` Al Viro
2013-04-05 22:46 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2013-04-06 3:01 ` Hannes Frederic Sowa
2013-04-06 5:00 ` Al Viro
2013-04-11 20:48 ` Eric W. Biederman
2013-04-11 23:29 ` Al Viro [this message]
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=20130411232913.GC4068@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
--to=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=adobriyan@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=tiwai@suse.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).