From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965010AbWCTPcq (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Mar 2006 10:32:46 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965315AbWCTPcM (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Mar 2006 10:32:12 -0500 Received: from palinux.external.hp.com ([192.25.206.14]:1999 "EHLO palinux.hppa") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965004AbWCTPcD (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Mar 2006 10:32:03 -0500 Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 08:32:02 -0700 From: Matthew Wilcox To: Miklos Szeredi Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: DoS with POSIX file locks? Message-ID: <20060320153202.GH8980@parisc-linux.org> References: <20060320121107.GE8980@parisc-linux.org> <20060320123950.GF8980@parisc-linux.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 01:52:39PM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > Things look fairly straightforward if the accounting is done in > files_struct instead of task_struct. At least for POSIX locks. I > haven't looked at flocks or leases yet. I was thinking that would work, yes. It might not be worth worrying about accounting for leases/flocks since each process can only have one of those per open file anyway. > steal_locks() might cause problems, but that function should be gotten > rid of anyway. I quite agree. Now we need to find a better way to solve the problem it papers over.