Messages in this thread |  | | From | Daniel Phillips <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] Improved inode number allocation for HTree | Date | Tue, 11 Mar 2003 21:19:11 +0100 |
| |
On Tue 11 Mar 03 20:39, Helge Hafting wrote: > On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 02:41:06PM +0100, Daniel Phillips wrote: > > <wishful thinking> > > Now that you mention it, just locking out create and rename during > > directory traversal would eliminate the pain. Delete is easy enough to > > handle during traversal. For a B-Tree, coalescing could simply be > > deferred until the traversal is finished, so reading the directory in > > physical storage order would be fine. Way, way cleaner than what we have > > to do now. > > </wishful thinking> > > Ok, so "rm" works. Then you have things like "mv *.c /usr/src" to worry > about.
That's equivalent to ls, the shell expands it before doing any moving. You can construct something more interesting with ls | xargs <something nasty> into the same directory. Since the user is trying to shoot their foot off, let the lock be recursive, and let them do that.
> ...someone evil still > could cause trouble by keeping a traversal going forever, creating one > dummy file and deleting one whenever it makes progress. The directory > would get big, filled up with placeholders until some ulimit kicks in. > > Helge Hafting
It's not clear that's any more evil than things they can do already, eg,
seq 1 1000000 | xargs -l1 cp -a /usr
Welllll, this is all idle speculation anyway. Nobody's going to fix the flaw this week, if it's even possible (I suspect it is).
Regards,
Daniel - 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/
|  |