On Tue, 19 Feb 2019, Al Viro wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 09:37:52PM -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > From: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > tmpfs has a peculiarity of accounting hard links as if they were separate
> > inodes: so that when the number of inodes is limited, as it is by default,
> > a user cannot soak up an unlimited amount of unreclaimable dcache memory
> > just by repeatedly linking a file.
> >
> > But when v3.11 added O_TMPFILE, and the ability to use linkat() on the fd,
> > we missed accommodating this new case in tmpfs: "df -i" shows that an
> > extra "inode" remains accounted after the file is unlinked and the fd
> > closed and the actual inode evicted. If a user repeatedly links tmpfiles
> > into a tmpfs, the limit will be hit (ENOSPC) even after they are deleted.
> >
> > Just skip the extra reservation from shmem_link() in this case: there's
> > a sense in which this first link of a tmpfile is then cheaper than a
> > hard link of another file, but the accounting works out, and there's
> > still good limiting, so no need to do anything more complicated.
> >
> > Fixes: f4e0c30c191 ("allow the temp files created by open() to be linked to")
> > Reported-by: Matej Kupljen <matej.kupljen@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> FWIW, Acked-by: Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
It's Worth A Lot, thanks Al. And I apologize for the cheeky "Fixes"
line, when a fair view would blame me for earlier adding the
weirdness fixed.
>
> Or I can drop it into vfs.git - up to you.
Andrew usually gathers the mm/shmem.c mods (unless it's you doing an
fs-wide sweep), so I was pointing it towards him; and I don't think it's
in dire need of a last minute rush to 5.0, though no harm in there either.
I'll say leave it to Andrew - and leave it to him to say the reverse :)
Thanks,
Hugh
