From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A85747F37 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 00:31:50 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 933E4304039 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 22:31:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 06:31:40 +0100 From: Al Viro Subject: Re: splice vs execve lockdep trace. Message-ID: <20130716053140.GK4165@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <20130716015305.GB30569@redhat.com> <20130716023847.GA31481@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Linux Kernel , xfs@oss.sgi.com, Ben Myers , Oleg Nesterov , Dave Jones On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 08:25:14PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > The "pipe -> cred_guard_mutex" lock chain is pretty direct, and can be > clearly attributed to splicing into /proc. Now, whether that is a > *good* idea or not is clearly debatable, and I do think that maybe we > should just not splice to/from proc files, but that doesn't seem to be > new, and I don't think it's necessarily *broken* per se, it's just > that splicing into /proc seems somewhat unnecessary, and various proc > files do end up taking locks that can be "interesting". FWIW, we might attack that one - after all, we could have ->splice_write() for that guy that would grab cred_guard_mutex, then call splice_from_pipe() with actor that would map/do security_setprocattr/unmap... Said that, considering what it does on write, it really does *not* want to deal with partial writes, so... _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs