Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 21:51:37 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] revoke(2) and generic handling of things like
 remove_proc_entry()
Message-ID: <20130405205137.GG4068@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
References: <20130405042932.GB4068@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <20130405195609.GA8745@kroah.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20130405195609.GA8745@kroah.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2406
Lines: 55

On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 12:56:09PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:

> Which methods do you mean here?

file->f_op->some_method()

> The vfs core would call start_using(), or would filesystems / drivers
> need to do this?

The former; we have relatively few places that call file_operations
members directly and we'd turn each of those into
	if (likely(start_using(file)) {
		res = file->f_op->foo(....);
		stop_using(file);
	} else {
		res = error_value_appropriate_for_foo;
	}
 
> > 4) nasty semantics issue - mmap() vs. revoke (of any sort, including
> > remove_proc_entry(), etc.).  Suppose a revokable file had been mmapped;
> > now it's going away.  What should we do to its VMAs?  Right now sysfs
> > and procfs get away with that, but only because there's only one thing
> > that has ->mmap() there - /proc/bus/pci and sysfs equivalents.  I've
> > no idea how does pci_mmap_page_range() interact with PCI hotplug (and
> > I'm not at all sure that whatever it does isn't racy wrt device removal),
> 
> The page range should just start returning 0xff all over the place, the
> BIOS should have kept the mapping around, as it can't really assign it
> anywhere else, so all _should_ be fine here.

Umm... 0xff or SIGSEGV?

> I think that's a reasonable constraint, although tearing down the VMAs
> might be possible if we just invalidate the file handle "forcefully"
> (i.e. manually tear them down and then further accesses should through a
> SIGSEV fail, or am I missing something more basic here?)

The question is how to do that in a reasonably clean way; we would've done
as part of ->kick(), I suppose, or right next to it.

> > 6) how do we get from revoke(2) to call of revoke_it() on the right object?
> > Note that revoke(2) is done by pathname; we might want an ...at() variant,
> > but all we'll have to play with will be inode, not an opened file.
> 
> Can we make revoke(2) require a valid file handle?  Is there a POSIX
> spec for revoke(2) that we have to follow here, or given that we haven't
> had one yet, are we free to define whatever we want without people
> getting that upset?

BSD one takes a pathname and so do all derived ones...
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/