Re: [PATCH RFC] proc: Don't retain negative dentries

2018-10-15 Thread Ahmad Fatoum
Hello, Thanks very much for the elaboration! On 8/10/18 20:01, Al Viro wrote: > On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 07:02:09PM +0200, Ahmad Fatoum wrote: > OK, to elaborate: where have you seen negative dentries on procfs in > the first place? I'm trying to find a way for such to happen, but > I don't see

Re: [PATCH RFC] proc: Don't retain negative dentries

2018-10-15 Thread Ahmad Fatoum
Hello, Thanks very much for the elaboration! On 8/10/18 20:01, Al Viro wrote: > On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 07:02:09PM +0200, Ahmad Fatoum wrote: > OK, to elaborate: where have you seen negative dentries on procfs in > the first place? I'm trying to find a way for such to happen, but > I don't see

Re: [PATCH RFC] proc: Don't retain negative dentries

2018-10-08 Thread Al Viro
On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 07:02:09PM +0200, Ahmad Fatoum wrote: > Hello, > > On 10/8/18 6:55 PM, Al Viro wrote: > > > > What the hell does that have to do with negative dentries anywhere??? > > It's possible that this needs fixing at another place. I don't know, > but this seems to work for me,

Re: [PATCH RFC] proc: Don't retain negative dentries

2018-10-08 Thread Al Viro
On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 07:02:09PM +0200, Ahmad Fatoum wrote: > Hello, > > On 10/8/18 6:55 PM, Al Viro wrote: > > > > What the hell does that have to do with negative dentries anywhere??? > > It's possible that this needs fixing at another place. I don't know, > but this seems to work for me,

Re: [PATCH RFC] proc: Don't retain negative dentries

2018-10-08 Thread Ahmad Fatoum
Hello, On 10/8/18 6:55 PM, Al Viro wrote: > > What the hell does that have to do with negative dentries anywhere??? It's possible that this needs fixing at another place. I don't know, but this seems to work for me, that's why I prefixed with RFC. > NAK. Rationale makes no sense _and_ the

Re: [PATCH RFC] proc: Don't retain negative dentries

2018-10-08 Thread Ahmad Fatoum
Hello, On 10/8/18 6:55 PM, Al Viro wrote: > > What the hell does that have to do with negative dentries anywhere??? It's possible that this needs fixing at another place. I don't know, but this seems to work for me, that's why I prefixed with RFC. > NAK. Rationale makes no sense _and_ the

Re: [PATCH RFC] proc: Don't retain negative dentries

2018-10-08 Thread Al Viro
On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 06:50:10PM +0200, Ahmad Fatoum wrote: > The referenced commit 1da4d377f94 ("proc: revalidate misc dentries") > caused following userspace code to access a stale /proc/net/dev > after the network namespace was changed: > Despite switching the network namespace, the read

Re: [PATCH RFC] proc: Don't retain negative dentries

2018-10-08 Thread Al Viro
On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 06:50:10PM +0200, Ahmad Fatoum wrote: > The referenced commit 1da4d377f94 ("proc: revalidate misc dentries") > caused following userspace code to access a stale /proc/net/dev > after the network namespace was changed: > Despite switching the network namespace, the read

Re: [PATCH RFC] proc: Don't retain negative dentries

2018-10-08 Thread Ahmad Fatoum
On 10/8/18 6:50 PM, Ahmad Fatoum wrote: > The referenced commit 1da4d377f94 ("proc: revalidate misc dentries") > caused following userspace code to access a stale /proc/net/dev > after the network namespace was changed: > > system("ip netns add testns"); > > printf("default:\n"); { >

Re: [PATCH RFC] proc: Don't retain negative dentries

2018-10-08 Thread Ahmad Fatoum
On 10/8/18 6:50 PM, Ahmad Fatoum wrote: > The referenced commit 1da4d377f94 ("proc: revalidate misc dentries") > caused following userspace code to access a stale /proc/net/dev > after the network namespace was changed: > > system("ip netns add testns"); > > printf("default:\n"); { >