Re: Interface for the new fallocate() system call

2007-04-06 Thread Andreas Dilger
On Apr 05, 2007 16:56 +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote: This should work on all the platforms. The only concern I can think of here is the convention being followed till now, where all the entities on which the action has to be performed by the kernel (say fd, file/device name, pid etc.) is the

Re: [PATCH 1/17] locks: trivial removal of unnecessary parentheses

2007-04-06 Thread Christoph Hellwig
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 07:40:51PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: From: J. Bruce Fields [EMAIL PROTECTED] - unquoted Remove some unnecessary parentheses. Looks good. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-fsdevel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More

Re: [PATCH 2/17] locks: create posix-to-flock helper functions

2007-04-06 Thread Christoph Hellwig
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 07:40:52PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: From: J. Bruce Fields [EMAIL PROTECTED] - unquoted Factor out a bit of messy code by creating posix-to-flock counterparts to the existing flock-to-posix helper functions. Ok. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line

Re: [PATCH 3/17] locks: make -lock release private data before returning in GETLK case

2007-04-06 Thread Christoph Hellwig
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 07:40:53PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c index f52cf5c..d557a51 100644 --- a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c +++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c @@ -3019,6 +3019,8 @@ static int _nfs4_proc_getlk(struct nfs4_state *state, int cmd, struct

Re: [PATCH 4/17] locks: give posix_test_lock same interface as -lock

2007-04-06 Thread Christoph Hellwig
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 07:40:54PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: From: Marc Eshel [EMAIL PROTECTED] - unquoted posix_test_lock() and -lock() do the same job but have gratuitously different interfaces. Modify posix_test_lock() so the two agree, simplifying some code in the process. Ok. -

Re: [PATCH 5/17] locks: factor out generic/filesystem switch from test_lock

2007-04-06 Thread Christoph Hellwig
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 07:40:55PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: From: J. Bruce Fields [EMAIL PROTECTED] - unquoted Factor out the code that switches between generic and filesystem-specific lock methods; eventually we want to call this from lock managers (lockd and nfsd) too; currently they

Re: [PATCH 6/17] locks: factor out generic/filesystem switch from setlock code

2007-04-06 Thread Christoph Hellwig
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 07:40:56PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: From: Marc Eshel [EMAIL PROTECTED] - unquoted Factor out the code that switches between generic and filesystem-specific lock methods; eventually we want to call this from lock managers (lockd and nfsd) too; currently they only

Re: [PATCH 7/17] locks: allow {vfs,posix}_lock_file to return conflicting lock

2007-04-06 Thread Christoph Hellwig
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 07:40:57PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: From: Marc Eshel [EMAIL PROTECTED] - unquoted The nfsv4 protocol's lock operation, in the case of a conflict, returns information about the conflicting lock. It's unclear how clients can use this, so for now we're not going

Re: [patch 0/8] unprivileged mount syscall

2007-04-06 Thread Andrew Morton
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 20:30:12 +0200 Miklos Szeredi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This patchset adds support for keeping mount ownership information in the kernel, and allow unprivileged mount(2) and umount(2) in certain cases. No replies, huh? My knowledge of the code which you're touching is not

Re: [patch 0/8] unprivileged mount syscall

2007-04-06 Thread Jan Engelhardt
On Apr 6 2007 16:16, H. Peter Anvin wrote: - users can use bind mounts without having to pre-configure them in /etc/fstab This is by far the biggest concern I see. I think the security implication of allowing anyone to do bind mounts are poorly understood. $ whoami miklos $ mount

Re: [patch 0/8] unprivileged mount syscall

2007-04-06 Thread H. Peter Anvin
Jan Engelhardt wrote: On Apr 6 2007 16:16, H. Peter Anvin wrote: - users can use bind mounts without having to pre-configure them in /etc/fstab This is by far the biggest concern I see. I think the security implication of allowing anyone to do bind mounts are poorly understood. $ whoami

Re: Reiser4. BEST FILESYSTEM EVER.

2007-04-06 Thread johnrobertbanks
On Fri, 6 Apr 2007 11:21:19 -0400, Jan Harkes [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Do you really have to repeat the results in every email you sent? The following benchmarks are from http://linuxhelp.150m.com/resources/fs-benchmarks.htm or, http://m.domaindlx.com/LinuxHelp/resources/fs-benchmarks.htm

Re: [patch 0/8] unprivileged mount syscall

2007-04-06 Thread Eric Van Hensbergen
On 4/6/07, H. Peter Anvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jan Engelhardt wrote: On Apr 6 2007 16:16, H. Peter Anvin wrote: - users can use bind mounts without having to pre-configure them in /etc/fstab This is by far the biggest concern I see. I think the security implication of allowing anyone

Re: Reiser4. BEST FILESYSTEM EVER.

2007-04-06 Thread Jan Harkes
Since you decide to publically respond to a private email, but not only you did not 'discuss' anything I wrote and in fact cut out most of the useful information in my reply I guess I will have to repeat my observations. Once I send out this email, I'll just add you to my friendly killfile (as

Re: Reiser4. BEST FILESYSTEM EVER.

2007-04-06 Thread johnrobertbanks
On Fri, 6 Apr 2007 23:30:49 -0400, Jan Harkes [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Since you decide to publically respond to a private email, but not only you did not 'discuss' anything I wrote and in fact cut out most of the useful information in my reply I guess I will have to repeat my observations.