Hi, On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 09:22:37 +0300 (EEST) Pekka J Enberg <penberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
