Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC/PATCH] revoke/frevoke system calls | From | Pekka Enberg <> | Date | Sat, 22 Jul 2006 10:41:39 +0300 |
| |
Hi,
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 09:22:37 +0300 (EEST) Pekka J Enberg <penberg@cs.Helsinki.FI> wrote: > > There are alternatives, playing games with ->f_op, creating fake struct > > file, and doing IS_REVOKED if-else in the paths, but I think this is by > > far the simplest way to do it. So in the Andrew scale of sads, how > > sad is it, exactly?-)
On Fri, 2006-07-21 at 23:59 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > Sad enough. Certainly worth an if-else to fix.
Actually, we can fix it with file->f_light thing Tigran is doing:
http://developer.osdl.org/dev/fumount/kernel2/patches/2.6.12/1/forced-unmount-2.6.12-1.patch
On Fri, 2006-07-21 at 23:59 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > Why is this approach so different from Tigran's, I wonder.
Not so different. I am blocking fork until I can revoke all open file descriptors (i.e. substitute with NULL) whereas Tigran is dropping tasklist_lock and retrying. I am not doing get_bad_file() because I don't think we really need it. Tigran's mmap takedown code looks pretty much what I want too.
On Fri, 2006-07-21 at 23:59 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > iirc, one of the things we added file.f_mapping for was revokation, but > this patch doesn't use it. Please ask Al Viro about this.
I searched fsdevel archives but couldn't find anything on that. Al?
Pekka
- 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/
| |