On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 11:01:10AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > On Tue 01-10-19 11:17:00, Ira Weiny wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 04:17:59PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > > > On Mon, 2019-09-23 at 12:08 -0700, Ira Weiny wrote: > > > > > > Will userland require any special privileges in order to set an > > > F_UNBREAK lease? This seems like something that could be used for DoS. I > > > assume that these will never time out. > > > > Dan and I discussed this some more and yes I think the uid of the process > > needs > > to be the owner of the file. I think that is a reasonable mechanism. > > Honestly, I'm not convinced anything more than open-for-write should be > required. Sure unbreakable lease may result in failing truncate and other > ops but as we discussed at LFS/MM, this is not hugely different from > executing a file resulting in ETXTBUSY for any truncate attempt (even from > root). So sufficiently priviledged user has to be able to easily find which > process(es) owns the lease so that he can kill it / take other > administrative action to release the lease. But that's about it.
Well that was kind of what I was thinking. However I wanted to be careful about requiring write permission when doing a F_RDLCK. I think that it has to be clearly documented _why_ write permission is required. > > > > How will we deal with the case where something is is squatting on an > > > F_UNBREAK lease and isn't letting it go? > > > > That is a good question. I had not considered someone taking the UNBREAK > > without pinning the file. > > IMHO the same answer as above - sufficiently priviledged user should be > able to easily find the process holding the lease and kill it. Given the > lease owner has to have write access to the file, he better should be from > the same "security domain"... > > > > Leases are technically "owned" by the file description -- we can't > > > necessarily trace it back to a single task in a threaded program. The > > > kernel task that set the lease may have exited by the time we go > > > looking. > > > > > > Will we be content trying to determine this using /proc/locks+lsof, etc, > > > or will we need something better? > > > > I think using /proc/locks is our best bet. Similar to my intention to > > report > > files being pinned.[1] > > > > In fact should we consider files with F_UNBREAK leases "pinned" and just > > report > > them there? > > As Jeff wrote later, /proc/locks is not enough. You need PID(s) which have > access to the lease and hold it alive. Your /proc/<pid>/ files you had in your > patches should do that, shouldn't they? Maybe they were not tied to the > right structure... They really need to be tied to the existence of a lease. Yes, sorry. I misspoke above. Right now /proc/<pid>/file_pins indicates that the file is pinned by GUP. I think it may be reasonable to extend that to any file which has F_UNBREAK specified. 'file_pins' may be the wrong name when we include F_UNBREAK'ed leased files, so I will think on the name. But I think this is possible and desired. Ira _______________________________________________ Linux-nvdimm mailing list -- linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org To unsubscribe send an email to linux-nvdimm-le...@lists.01.org
