Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756423AbZKSV4n (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:56:43 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755322AbZKSV4m (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:56:42 -0500 Received: from out01.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.231]:52100 "EHLO out01.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755317AbZKSV4l (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:56:41 -0500 To: Pavel Machek Cc: Jeff Layton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] procfs: make /proc style symlinks behave like "normal" symlinks References: <1258638251-20034-1-git-send-email-jlayton@redhat.com> <20091119132833.30bc93a4@barsoom.rdu.redhat.com> <20091119143555.7851953f@barsoom.rdu.redhat.com> <20091119213935.GA11212@elf.ucw.cz> From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:56:44 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20091119213935.GA11212@elf.ucw.cz> (Pavel Machek's message of "Thu\, 19 Nov 2009 22\:39\:35 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-XM-SPF: eid=;;;mid=;;;hst=in02.mta.xmission.com;;;ip=76.21.114.89;;;frm=ebiederm@xmission.com;;;spf=neutral X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 76.21.114.89 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ebiederm@xmission.com X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Thu, 25 Oct 2007 00:26:12 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on in02.mta.xmission.com); Unknown failure Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1310 Lines: 32 Pavel Machek writes: >> > Adding all of the short comings to followlink that readlink has is a problem, >> > especially as followlink does much better now. >> > >> > At a practical level I think your changes are much easier to exploit than >> > Pavels contrived example. >> > >> > I really don't have any problems with your first patch to proc to add the >> > missing revalidate. >> > >> >> Thanks, that makes sense. The raciness was evident once you pointed it >> out, so I think you're correct that we can't take this approach. >> >> Adding the missing revalidations is fine, but I don't believe that >> helps to fix Pavel's issue. I'll go back and take a more careful look >> at the suggestion that Miklos made and see whether it makes sense to >> implement a new FS_* flag for this, and see what it'll take to fix >> Pavel's issue. > > One posibility would be to make open(/proc/XX/fd/XX) behave like > dup(). That should solve the NFS problems, too, no? Not for bind mounts, and the revalidate in follow_mounts is a bug regardless. Eric -- 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/