From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266885AbUHCVkb (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Aug 2004 17:40:31 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266880AbUHCVkb (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Aug 2004 17:40:31 -0400 Received: from mail-relay-1.tiscali.it ([213.205.33.41]:39617 "EHLO mail-relay-1.tiscali.it") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266890AbUHCVkJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Aug 2004 17:40:09 -0400 Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 23:39:42 +0200 From: Andrea Arcangeli To: Rik van Riel Cc: Chris Wright , Arjan van de Ven , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@osdl.org Subject: Re: [patch] mlock-as-nonroot revisted Message-ID: <20040803213942.GL2241@dualathlon.random> References: <20040803212231.GJ2241@dualathlon.random> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-GPG-Key: 1024D/68B9CB43 13D9 8355 295F 4823 7C49 C012 DFA1 686E 68B9 CB43 X-PGP-Key: 1024R/CB4660B9 CC A0 71 81 F4 A0 63 AC C0 4B 81 1D 8C 15 C8 E5 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 05:31:08PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote: > If root wants to screw over a user, there's nothing we > can do. I am not worried about the scenario you describe > because hugetlbfs seems to be used only by Oracle anyway, > so you won't run into issues like you describe. hugetlbfs isn't only used by oracle. Anyways if you were right then why is there a IPC_CAP_LOCK in hugetlbfs in the first place? If Oracle is the only user then just drop such check and stop binding rlimits to persistent fs objects. > It would be different for a general purpose filesystem, > but I'd like to see a usage case for your scenario before > making the code overly complex. if calling chown on hugetlbfs makes no sense then why is chown available in the first place?