Re: forced umount?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 3/17/07, Mike Snitzer <snitzer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Thanks for the heads up; its good to see that Pekka Enberg's work has
continued.  I actually stumbled onto that line of work earlier while
searching for more info on Tigran Aivazian's forced unmount (badfs)
patches:
http://lwn.net/Articles/192632/

FYI, the revoke implementation have since been changed to follow the
badfs-style approach of the forced unmount patches. However, there are
some problems with the forced unmount patches that are now fixed in
the revoke implementation:

 - You can't use munmap() to take down shared memory mappings because the
   application can accidentally remap something completely different
to that region.
 - The ->f_light bits slow down other fget_light() users and  there's
a race between
   fcheck_files() and set_f_light().
 - The operation can live-lock if a malicious process keeps forking. The revoke
   implementation solves this by revoking in two passes: (1) take
down the descriptors
   and (2) take down the actual inodes.

                          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

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]
  Powered by Linux