No specific spec, just general quality of implementation.
I completely agree. If one thread writes A and another writes B then the
kernel should record either A or B, not ((A 0x) | (B
0x))
Agree entirely: the spec doesn't allow for random scribbling in the wrong
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 15:10:34 +0100
Andi Kleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 28 January 2008 14:38:57 Alan Cox wrote:
Also worse really fixing it would be a major change to the VFS
because of the way -read/write are defined :/
I don't see a problem there. -read and -write update
Also worse really fixing it would be a major change to the VFS
because of the way -read/write are defined :/
I don't see a problem there. -read and -write update the passed pointer
which is not the real f_pos anyway. Just the copies need fixing.
Alan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the
I'd tried to advocate SIGDANGER some years ago as well, but none of
the kernel maintainers were interested. It definitely makes sense
to have some sort of mechanism like this. At the time I first brought
it up it was in conjunction with Netscape using too much cache on some
system, but it
Writeback cache on disk in iteself is not bad, it only gets bad if the
disk is not engineered to save all its dirty cache on power loss,
using the disk motor as a generator or alternatively a small battery.
It would be awfully nice to know which brands fail here, if any,
because writeback
What are ext3 expectations of disk (is there doc somewhere)? For
example... if disk does not lie, but powerfail during write damages
the sector -- is ext3 still going to work properly?
Nope. However the few disks that did this rapidly got firmware updates
because there are other OS's that
the problem.
Cc: George G. Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Acked-by: Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Its a good fix for now and I doubt any real world user has that complex a
locking pattern to break.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 13:43:21 -0400
J. Bruce Fields [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: J. Bruce Fields [EMAIL PROTECTED]
We currently attempt to return -EDEALK to blocking fcntl() file locking
requests that would create a cycle in the graph of tasks waiting on
locks.
This is inefficient: in
And if posix file locks are to be useful to threaded applications, then
we have to preserve the same no-false-positives requirement for them as
well.
It isn't useful to threaded applications. The specification requires
this. Which is another reason for having an additional Linux (for now)
flag
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 12:27:32 -0600
Matthew Wilcox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Oct 28, 2007 at 01:43:21PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
We currently attempt to return -EDEALK to blocking fcntl() file locking
requests that would create a cycle in the graph of tasks waiting on
locks.
- EDEADLK behaviour is ABI
Not in any meaningful way.
I've seen SYS5 software that relies on it so we should be careful. Again
see the 2004 discussion where the conclusion was that EDEADLK should stay
- EDEADLK behaviour is required by SuSv3
What SuSv3 actually says is:
If
Bzzt. You get a false deadlock with multiple threads like so:
Thread A of task B takes lock 1
Thread C of task D takes lock 2
Thread C of task D blocks on lock 1
Thread E of task B blocks on lock 2
The spec and SYSV certainly ignore threading in this situation and you
know that perfectly
The spec and SYSV certainly ignore threading in this situation and you
know that perfectly well (or did in 2004)
The discussion petered out (or that mailing list archive lost articles
from the thread) without any kind of resolution, or indeed interest.
I think the resolution was that the
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 17:38:14 -0600
Matthew Wilcox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Oct 28, 2007 at 09:38:55PM +, Alan Cox wrote:
It doesn't require the system to detect it, only mandate what to return
if it does detect it.
We should be detecting at least the obvious case.
What
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 16:06:40 -0700
Mike Waychison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Remove the need for having CAP_SYS_RAWIO when doing a FIBMAP call on an open
file descriptor.
It would be nice to allow users to have permission to see where their data is
landing on disk, and there really isn't a
I found Chris's comment about negative block numbers, I'll send a patch
out for that.
You mentioned back in 99 about racing with ftruncate. Is it sufficient
to mutex_lock(i_mutex) and down_read(i_alloc_sem)?
One for the fs guys. That code has changed far beyond anything I
understand any
Cute feature, but it is (I assume) a Linux-specific extension and is
something which we'll need to maintain for ever and it invites
Actually it used to work on the old old Linux pipe code.
unportability to older Linuxes and other OSes and it introduces some risk
of breakage of existing
therefore
transition to the proper error return code
Signed-off-by: Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED]
diff -u --new-file --exclude-from /usr/src/exclude --recursive
linux.vanilla-2.6.23rc8-mm1/fs/gfs2/ops_file.c
linux-2.6.23rc8-mm1/fs/gfs2/ops_file.c
--- linux.vanilla-2.6.23rc8-mm1/fs/gfs2/ops_file.c
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 07:01:18 -0700
Arjan van de Ven [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 14:29:19 +0100
Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The early LFS work that Linux uses favours EFBIG in various places.
SuSv3 specifically uses EOVERFLOW for this as noted by Michael (Bug
7253
Its a change of a specific error return from the wrong error to the right
one, nothing more. Fixing the returned error gives us correct behaviour
according to the standards and other systems.
It may still break applications. Waving some standard at them if they
complain is unlikely to
Well it's not my call, just seems like a really bad idea to change the
error value. You can't claim full coverage for such testing anyway, it's
one of those things that people will complain about two releases later
saying it broke app foo.
Strange since we've spent years changing error values
But it's has various dawbacks, like rmdir doesn't work if there are
open files within an otherwise empty directory.
I'd happily accept suggestions on how to deal with this differenty.
NFS has that problem because it really has to sillyrename into the same
directory. I don't see that ssh/sftp
Anyone can apply the apparmour patch to their tree, they get the
choice that way. Nobody is currently prevented from using apparmour
if they want to, any such suggestion is pure rubbish.
The exact same argument was made prior to SELinux going upstream.
Its made for every thing before it
http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/fetch.jsp?LANG=ENGDBSELECT=PCTSERVER_TYPE=19SORT=1211506-KEYTYPE_FIELD=256IDB=0IDOC=1205953C=10ELEMENT_SET=IA,WO,TTL-ENRESULT=1TOTAL=3START=1DISP=25FORM=SEP-0/HITNUM,B-ENG,DP,MC,PA,ABSUM-ENGSEARCH_IA=US2005045566QUERY=%28IN%2fmerkey%29+
The last one was filed with
(Vax/VMS System Software Handbook)
(TOPS-20 User's Manual)
Also Files/11
Basic versioning goes back to at least ITS
Not sure how old doing file versioning and hiding it away with a tool to
go rescue the stuff you blew away by mistake is, but Novell Netware 3
certainly did a good job on
As such, AA can detect whether you did exec(gzip) or exec(gunzip)
and apply the policy relevant to the program. It could apply different
That's not actually useful for programs which link the same binary to
multiple names because if you don't consider argv[0] as well I can run
/usr/bin/gzip
Preventive measures are taken to limit only one continuation inode per
file per chunk. This can be done easily in the chunk allocation
algorithm for disk space. Although I'm not quite sure what you mean by
How are you handling the allocation in this situation, are you assuming
that a chunk
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 01:23:04 +0200
Andreas Gruenbacher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
First, when __d_path() hits a lazily unmounted mount point, it tries to
prepend
the name of the lazily unmounted dentry to the path name. It gets this wrong,
and also overwrites the slash that separates the name
Gruenbacher [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This change in behaviour appears to be fine for glibc (except when trying
to find the name of a file from a namespace we are not in, which wouldn't
have come out right before either)
Acked-by: Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(but still NAK on the getcwd change)
-
To unsubscribe
That is a fairly significant and sudden change to the existing
kernel/user interface.
Well, this is not meant for 2.6.21. I hope it is possible to change it in
early 2.6.22; otherwise if we can't fix mistakes from the past we are pretty
doomed.
I don't believe the existing behaviour
don't actually have to care --- if loading an invalid profile can bring down
the system, then that's no worse than an arbitrary module that crashes the
machine. Not sure if there will ever be user loadable profiles; at least at
that point we had to care.
CAP_SYS_RAWIO is needed to do
Third, sys_getcwd() shouldn't return disconnected paths. The patch checks for
that, and makes it fail with -ENOENT in that case
That is a fairly significant and sudden change to the existing
kernel/user interface.
Fourth, this now allows us to tell unreachable mount points from reachable
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 02:08:12 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
notify_change() already calls security_inode_setattr() before
calling iop-setattr.
This is a behaviour change on all of these and limits some behaviour of
existing established security modules
When inode_change_ok is called it has
+
+ /**
+ * parent can ptrace child when
+ * - parent is unconfined
+ * - parent is in complain mode
+ * - parent and child are confined by the same profile
+ */
Your profiles are name based. That means the same profile in a different
namespace does different
+ th.td_id = ntohs(*(u16 *) (blob));
+ th.td_flags = ntohs(*(u16 *) (blob + 2));
+ th.td_lolen = ntohl(*(u32 *) (blob + 8));
Use cpu_to and _to_cpu functions for here so it is clear the intended
direction and endianness.
+
+static inline int aa_inbounds(struct aa_ext *e, size_t
+ * aa_taskattr_access
+ * @name: name of the file to check
+ *
+ * Check if name matches /proc/self/attr/current, with self resolved
+ * to the current pid. This file is the usermode iterface for
+ * changing one's hat.
+ */
+static inline int aa_taskattr_access(const char *name)
+{
+
Now, if this disk was copied byte per byte (/bin/dd) to a
4096-based disk, and Linux would start using a sector size of
4096, then I would suddenly have
The ATA drives I'm aware of report 512 byte sector size, do 512 byte
I/O's but use 4K physical sectors and to get sane performance except the
First generation of 1K sector drives will continue to use the same
512-byte ATA sector size you are familiar with. A single 512-byte write
will cause the drive to perform a read-modify-write cycle. This
configuration is physical 1K sector, logical 512b sector.
The problem case is
For 1K/4K logical sector sizes, who knows. EFI? grins and runs
Certainly seems incompatible with the current popular DOS partition format.
Its a bit messier than that. There are two interpretations of DOS
partition formats found on 2K sector size magneto opticals. One is that
everything is
Are there other concerns in the IO or FS stack that we should bring up
with vendors? I have been asked to summarize the impact of 4k sectors
on linux for a disk vendor gathering and want to make sure that I put
all of our linux specific items into that summary...
We need to make sure the
On Maw, 2005-09-06 at 02:48 -0400, Daniel Phillips wrote:
On Tuesday 06 September 2005 01:05, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
do you think it is a bit premature to dismiss something even without
ever seeing the code?
You told me you are using a dlm for a single-node application, is there
anything
On Sad, 2005-09-03 at 21:46 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
Actually I think it's rather sick. Taking O_NONBLOCK and making it a
lock-manager trylock because they're kinda-sorta-similar-sounding? Spare
me. O_NONBLOCK means open this file in nonblocking mode, not attempt to
acquire a clustered
On Iau, 2005-09-01 at 03:59 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
- Why the kernel needs two clustered fileystems
So delete reiserfs4, FAT, VFAT, ext2, and all the other junk.
- Why GFS is better than OCFS2, or has functionality which OCFS2 cannot
possibly gain (or vice versa)
- Relative merits
That's GFS. The submission is about a GFS2 that's on-disk incompatible
to GFS.
Just like say reiserfs3 and reiserfs4 or ext and ext2 or ext2 and ext3
then. I think the main point still stands - we have always taken
multiple file systems on board and we have benefitted enormously from
having
On Llu, 2005-08-08 at 09:33 -0400, Janak Desai wrote:
[PATCH 1/2] unshare system call: System Call handler function sys_unshare
Given the complexity of the kernel code involved and the obscurity of
the functionality why not just do another clone() in userspace to
unshare the things you want
I think it's a misfit between Linus' kernel and the
quota tools from http://sourceforge.net/projects/linuxquota/
Linus quota code is way out of date and only handles 16bit uid
Linus' tree and Alan's are showing a 2000 line diff in
dquot.c alone. `quotaon' seems to be passing arguments into
Matti Aarnio writes:
I am contemplating to periodically turn off the ECN bit to
let email out, but DaveM has veto there.
I veto, the whole point of moving to ECN was to make a statement and
get people to fix their kit.
We will remove these people, that's all.
Since HTML email also
Why are LVM and EVMS(competing LVM project) needed at all?
I prefer to think of it the other way around
Surely the same can be accomplished with
* md
* snapshot blkdev (attached in previous e-mail)
* giving partitions and blkdevs the ability to grow and shrink
* giving filesystems the
How about sprintf(s + strlen(s), foo)?
Solar Designer said two years ago we should be using snprintf in the kernel.
He was most decidedly right 8)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-fsdevel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linus, as much as I'd like to agree with you, you are hopeless optimist.
90% of drivers contain code written by stupid gits.
I think thats a very arrogant and very mistaken view of the problem. 90%
of the driver are written by people who are
- Copying from other drivers
On Sun, 20 May 2001, Ingo Oeser wrote:
PS: English is neither mine, nor Linus native language. Why do
the English natives complain instead of us? ;-)
Because we had some experience with, erm, localized systems and for
Alan it's most likely pure theory? ;-)
I think its important its
ioctls are evil, period. At least with these names you can use normal
scripting and don't need any special tools. Every ioctl means a binary
that has no business to exist.
That is not IMHO a rational argument. It isn't my fault that your shell does
not support ioctls usefully. If you used
just look at fs/cramfs/inode.c:cramfs_read_page()
It uses page_address instead of kmap().
I would have fixed it myself, but I don't know, how I should
kunmap() it, once we have memory pressure.
Take a look at ramfs. kmap isnt really a 'pressure' thing. You want to kunmap
the page as soon
53 matches
Mail list logo
