Re: [PATCH 1/9] Unionfs: security convert lsm into a static interface fix

2007-10-22 Thread Christoph Hellwig
On Sun, Oct 21, 2007 at 07:51:14PM -0400, Erez Zadok wrote: From: Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] ERROR: security_inode_permission [fs/unionfs/unionfs.ko] undefined! ERROR: security_file_ioctl [fs/unionfs/unionfs.ko] undefined! Need these back. These should never used by modules. You'll

[ANNOUNCE] util-linux-ng 2.13.0.1

2007-10-22 Thread Karel Zak
The stable util-linux-ng 2.13.0.1 release is available at ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/utils/util-linux-ng/ Release Notes = Fixed security issue: CVE-2007-5191 - mount: doesn't drop privileges properly when calling helpers Changelog: - For

Re: Does 32.1% non-contiguous mean severely fragmented?

2007-10-22 Thread Tetsuo Handa
Hello. Theodore Tso wrote: Secondly, what results do you get when you run the command hdparm -tT /dev/sda (or /dev/hda if you are using an IDE disk)? [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ubuntu7.10]# hdparm -tT /dev/hda1 /dev/hda1: Timing cached reads: 10384 MB in 2.00 seconds = 5196.44 MB/sec Timing

Re: Does 32.1% non-contiguous mean severely fragmented?

2007-10-22 Thread Theodore Tso
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 08:58:11PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote: --- Start VM --- --- Suspend VM --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ubuntu7.10]# filefrag Ubuntu7.10.vmem Ubuntu7.10.vmem: 751 extents found, perfection would be 5 extents [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ubuntu7.10]# sync [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ubuntu7.10]#

[PATCH 2/2] VFS: Reorder vfs_getxattr to avoid unnecessary calls to the LSM

2007-10-22 Thread David P. Quigley
Originally vfs_getxattr would pull the security xattr variable using the inode getxattr handle and then proceed to clobber it with a subsequent call to the LSM. This patch reorders the two operations such that when the xattr requested is in the security namespace it first attempts to grab the

[RFC 0/2] getsecurity/vfs_getxattr cleanup

2007-10-22 Thread David P. Quigley
This patch series addresses two concerns. Currently when a developer wishes to obtain a security blob from the LSM he/she has to guess at the length of the blob being returned. We modify security_inode_getsecurity to return an appropriately sized buffer populated with the security information and

[PATCH 1/2] VFS/Security: Rework inode_getsecurity and callers to return resulting buffer

2007-10-22 Thread David P. Quigley
This patch modifies the interface to inode_getsecurity to have the function return a buffer containing the security blob and its length via parameters instead of relying on the calling function to give it an appropriately sized buffer. Security blobs obtained with this function should be

Re: msync(2) bug(?), returns AOP_WRITEPAGE_ACTIVATE to userland

2007-10-22 Thread Hugh Dickins
Sorry for my delay, here are a few replies. On Sun, 14 Oct 2007, Erez Zadok wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Pekka Enberg writes: However, I don't think the mapping_cap_writeback_dirty() check in __filemap_fdatawrite_range() works as expected when tmpfs is a lower mount for an

Re: msync(2) bug(?), returns AOP_WRITEPAGE_ACTIVATE to userland

2007-10-22 Thread Hugh Dickins
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007, Erez Zadok wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Pekka J Enberg writes: Look at mm/filemap.c:__filemap_fdatawrite_range(). You shouldn't be calling unionfs_writepage() _at all_ if the lower mapping has BDI_CAP_NO_WRITEBACK capability set. Perhaps something like the

Re: msync(2) bug(?), returns AOP_WRITEPAGE_ACTIVATE to userland

2007-10-22 Thread Hugh Dickins
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007, Pekka Enberg wrote: I wonder whether _not setting_ BDI_CAP_NO_WRITEBACK implies that -writepage() will never return AOP_WRITEPAGE_ACTIVATE for !wbc-for_reclaim case which would explain why we haven't hit this bug before. Hugh, Andrew? Only ramdisk and shmem have been

Re: msync(2) bug(?), returns AOP_WRITEPAGE_ACTIVATE to userland

2007-10-22 Thread Pekka Enberg
Hi Hugh, On 10/22/07, Hugh Dickins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't disagree with your unionfs_writepages patch, Pekka, but I think it should be viewed as an optimization (don't waste time trying to write a group of pages when we know that nothing will be done) rather than as essential. Ok,

Re: msync(2) bug(?), returns AOP_WRITEPAGE_ACTIVATE to userland

2007-10-22 Thread Pekka Enberg
Hi Hugh, On Mon, 15 Oct 2007, Pekka Enberg wrote: I wonder whether _not setting_ BDI_CAP_NO_WRITEBACK implies that -writepage() will never return AOP_WRITEPAGE_ACTIVATE for !wbc-for_reclaim case which would explain why we haven't hit this bug before. Hugh, Andrew? On 10/22/07, Hugh

Re: msync(2) bug(?), returns AOP_WRITEPAGE_ACTIVATE to userland

2007-10-22 Thread Erez Zadok
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Hugh Dickins writes: On Mon, 15 Oct 2007, Pekka Enberg wrote: I wonder whether _not setting_ BDI_CAP_NO_WRITEBACK implies that -writepage() will never return AOP_WRITEPAGE_ACTIVATE for !wbc-for_reclaim case which would explain why we haven't hit this bug

Re: msync(2) bug(?), returns AOP_WRITEPAGE_ACTIVATE to userland

2007-10-22 Thread Erez Zadok
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Hugh Dickins writes: Sorry for my delay, here are a few replies. In unionfs_writepage() I tried to emulate as best possible what the lower f/s will have returned to the VFS. Since tmpfs's -writepage can return AOP_WRITEPAGE_ACTIVATE and re-mark its page as

Re: [PATCH -mm] Split fs/Kconfig: ext[234]

2007-10-22 Thread Andrew Morton
On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 12:15:08 +0400 Alexey Dobriyan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Signed-off-by: Alexey Dobriyan [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- fs/Kconfig | 191 -- fs/ext2/Kconfig | 55 + fs/ext3/Kconfig | 67

[PATCH] 9p: v9fs_vfs_rename incorrect clunk order

2007-10-22 Thread Latchesar Ionkov
In v9fs_vfs_rename function labels don't match the fids that are clunked. The correct clunk order is clunking newdirfid first and then olddirfid next. Signed-off-by: Latchesar Ionkov [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- commit 0c9269a1384273b7a409a2163fdf91cd39092889 tree

Re: [PATCH 1/9] Unionfs: security convert lsm into a static interface fix

2007-10-22 Thread Erez Zadok
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Christoph Hellwig writes: On Sun, Oct 21, 2007 at 07:51:14PM -0400, Erez Zadok wrote: From: Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] ERROR: security_inode_permission [fs/unionfs/unionfs.ko] undefined! ERROR: security_file_ioctl [fs/unionfs/unionfs.ko] undefined!