Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753857AbYAEXCM (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 Jan 2008 18:02:12 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752589AbYAEXB6 (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 Jan 2008 18:01:58 -0500 Received: from home.nigel.suspend2.net ([203.171.70.205]:35308 "EHLO server1.example.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752558AbYAEXB5 (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 Jan 2008 18:01:57 -0500 Message-ID: <47800C5F.3080907@nigel.suspend2.net> Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 10:01:51 +1100 From: Nigel Cunningham Reply-To: nigel@nigel.suspend2.net User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20071022) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pavel Machek CC: Oliver Neukum , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Kyle Moffett , Matthew Garrett , David Chinner , Jeremy Fitzhardinge , xfs-masters@oss.sgi.com, Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: freeze vs freezer References: <4744FD87.7010301@goop.org> <200801031215.07145.oliver@neukum.org> <477D5C4F.8050800@nigel.suspend2.net> <200801042154.08758.oliver@neukum.org> <20080105211826.GB25341@elf.ucw.cz> In-Reply-To: <20080105211826.GB25341@elf.ucw.cz> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2254 Lines: 49 Hi. Pavel Machek wrote: > On Fri 2008-01-04 21:54:06, Oliver Neukum wrote: >> Am Donnerstag, 3. Januar 2008 23:06:07 schrieb Nigel Cunningham: >>> Oliver Neukum wrote: >>>> Am Donnerstag, 3. Januar 2008 10:52:53 schrieb Nigel Cunningham: >>>>> Oliver Neukum wrote: >>>>>> Am Donnerstag 03 Januar 2008 schrieb Nigel Cunningham: >>>>>>> On top of this, I made a (too simple at the moment) freeze_filesystems >>>>>>> function which iterates through &super_blocks in reverse order, freezing >>>>>>> fuse filesystems or ordinary ones. I say 'too simple' because it doesn't >>>>>>> currently allow for the possibility of someone mounting (say) ext3 on >>>>>>> fuse, but that would just be an extension of what's already done. >>>>>> How do you deal with fuse server tasks using other fuse filesystems? >>>>> Since they're frozen in reverse order, the dependant one would be frozen >>>>> first. >>>> Say I do: >>>> >>>> a) mount fuse on /tmp/first >>>> b) mount fuse on /tmp/second >>>> >>>> Then the server task for (a) does "ls /tmp/second". So it will be frozen, >>>> right? How do you then freeze (a)? And keep in mind that the server task >>>> may have forked. >>> I guess I should first ask, is this a real life problem or a >>> hypothetical twisted web? I don't see why you would want to make two >>> filesystems interdependent - it sounds like the way to create livelock >>> and deadlocks in normal use, before we even begin to think about >>> hibernating. >> Good questions. I personally don't use fuse, but I do care about power >> management. The problem I see is that an unprivileged user could make >> that dependency, even inadvertedly. > > Other problem is that unprivileged user can do it with evil intent. So > called "denial-of-service" attack. Only in this case it would be a denial-of-denial-of-service attack, since it would stop you hibernating or suspending :). This is still all hypothetical. If I could have a real life case where this could actually happen, it would help a lot. Nigel -- 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/