m...@netbsd.org (Emmanuel Dreyfus) writes:
Alan Barrett a...@netbsd.org wrote:
The fexecve function could be implemented entirely in libc,
via execve(2) on a file name of the form /proc/self/fd/N.
Any security concerns around fexecve() also apply to exec of
/proc/self/fd/N.
I gave a try
The fexecve function could be implemented entirely in libc,
via execve(2) on a file name of the form /proc/self/fd/N.
Any security concerns around fexecve() also apply to exec of
/proc/self/fd/N.
I gave a try to this approach. There is an unexpected issue:
The descriptor is probably already
On Tue, 4 Dec 2012 08:49:17 + (UTC)
mlel...@serpens.de (Michael van Elst) wrote:
The descriptor is probably already closed on exec before the syscall
tries to use it.
Nope. That happens later. I was looking through this code yesterday as
the topic interests me. The namei lookup happens
On Sat, Dec 01, 2012 at 11:38:55PM -0500, Mouse wrote:
things. What I care about is the largest size sector that will (in
^^^
the ordinary course of things anyway) be written atomically.
Then those are 512-byte-sector drives [...]
No; because
On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 12:19:58AM +, Julian Yon wrote:
You appear to have just agreed with me, which makes me wonder what I'm
missing, given you continue as though you disagree.
You asked why 4096-byte-sector disks accept 512-byte writes. I was
trying to explain.
However, we're
On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 02:14:27PM +, David Holland wrote:
On Sat, Dec 01, 2012 at 11:38:55PM -0500, Mouse wrote:
things. What I care about is the largest size sector that will (in
^^^
the ordinary course of things anyway) be written
On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 09:26:17AM -0500, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
And, can't you do that with traditional drives, drives which really do
have 512-byte sectors? Do a 4K transfer and you write 8 physical
sectors with no opportunity for any other operation to see the write
On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 09:59:46AM +0300, Alan Barrett wrote:
the genfs code also never writes clean pages to disk, even though for
RAID5 storage it would likely be more efficient to write clean pages
that are in the same stripe as dirty pages if that would avoid issuing
partial-stripe
On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 01:58:13PM +, Julian Yon wrote:
The descriptor is probably already closed on exec before the syscall
tries to use it.
Nope. That happens later. I was looking through this code yesterday as
the topic interests me. The namei lookup happens pretty early on. I
On Sun, Dec 02, 2012 at 05:29:01PM +0100, J. Hannken-Illjes wrote:
I'm convinced -- having fstrans_start() return ERESTART is the way to go.
Ok then :-)
Also I wonder if there's any way to accomplish this that doesn't
require adding fstrans calls to every operation in every fs.
Date:Tue, 4 Dec 2012 15:44:47 +0300
From:Alan Barrett a...@cequrux.com
Message-ID: 20121204124447.gf8...@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za
| The fexecve function could be implemented entirely in libc,
| via execve(2) on a file name of the form /proc/self/fd/N.
| Any
On Tue, 4 Dec 2012 15:30:36 +
David Holland dholland-t...@netbsd.org wrote:
On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 01:58:13PM +, Julian Yon wrote:
The descriptor is probably already closed on exec before the
syscall tries to use it.
Nope. That happens later. I was looking through this
On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 02:57:52PM +, David Holland wrote:
What's a kernel panic got to do with it? If you hand the controller
and thus the drive 4K write, the kernel panicing won't suddenly cause
you to reverse time and have issued 8 512-byte writes instead.
That depends on
hann...@eis.cs.tu-bs.de (J. Hannken-Illjes) writes:
The attached diff tries to coalesce writes to the journal in MAXPHYS
sized and aligned blocks.
[...]
Comments or objections anyone?
+ * Write data to the log.
+ * Try to coalesce writes and emit MAXPHYS aligned blocks.
Looks fine, but I would
On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 07:10:47PM +, Michael van Elst wrote:
hann...@eis.cs.tu-bs.de (J. Hannken-Illjes) writes:
The attached diff tries to coalesce writes to the journal in MAXPHYS
sized and aligned blocks.
[...]
Comments or objections anyone?
+ * Write data to the log.
+ * Try to
On Dec 4, 2012, at 8:10 PM, Michael van Elst mlel...@serpens.de wrote:
hann...@eis.cs.tu-bs.de (J. Hannken-Illjes) writes:
The attached diff tries to coalesce writes to the journal in MAXPHYS
sized and aligned blocks.
[...]
Comments or objections anyone?
+ * Write data to the log.
+ *
On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 09:53:11PM +0100, J. Hannken-Illjes wrote:
On Dec 4, 2012, at 8:10 PM, Michael van Elst mlel...@serpens.de wrote:
hann...@eis.cs.tu-bs.de (J. Hannken-Illjes) writes:
The attached diff tries to coalesce writes to the journal in MAXPHYS
sized and aligned blocks.
On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 11:42:04PM +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
Even chroot isn't a problem, unless you're tempted to view it as some
kind of security mechanism. It really isn't - it is just namespace
modification. Sure, by modifying the filesystem namespace a bunch
of simple security
On Apr 22, 5:50pm, Robert Elz wrote:
}
} Date:Thu, 29 Nov 2012 22:54:24 -0500 (EST)
} From:Mouse mo...@rodents-montreal.org
} Message-ID: 201211300354.waa22...@sparkle.rodents-montreal.org
}
} On the general VLAn topic, I agree with all Dennis said - leave the VLAN
On Dec 4, 2012, at 10:11 PM, David Laight da...@l8s.co.uk wrote:
On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 09:53:11PM +0100, J. Hannken-Illjes wrote:
On Dec 4, 2012, at 8:10 PM, Michael van Elst mlel...@serpens.de wrote:
hann...@eis.cs.tu-bs.de (J. Hannken-Illjes) writes:
The attached diff tries to
20 matches
Mail list logo
