![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Eric W. Biederman wrote: > >At this point given that we actually have a small user space dependency >and the fact that after I have reviewed the code it looks harmless to >change the inode number of those inodes, in both cases they are just >anonymous inodes generated with new_inode, and anything that we wrap >is likely to be equally so. > >So it looks to me like we need to do three things: >- Fix the inode number > Okay. its already done. > >- Fix the name on the hugetlbfs dentry to hold the key > I don't see need for doing this for hugetlbfs inodes. Currently, they don't base their name on "key" + basing on the "key" is kind of useless anyway (its not unique). > >- Add a big fat comment that user space programs depend on this > behavior of both the dentry name and the inode number. > I don't think, the user-space can depend on the dentry-name. It can only depend on inode# to match shmid. (since key is not unique esp. for key=0x00000000). BTW, I agree that shmid is not unique even without namespaces as its based on seq# and we wrap seq#. Thanks, Badari - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2007-06-08 16:11 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||