Eric W. Biederman wrote:
At this point given that we actually have a small user space dependency
and the fact that after I have reviewed the code it looks harmless to
change the inode number of those inodes, in both cases they are just
anonymous inodes generated with new_inode, and anything that we wrap
is likely to be equally so.
So it looks to me like we need to do three things:
- Fix the inode number
Okay. its already done.
- Fix the name on the hugetlbfs dentry to hold the key
I don't see need for doing this for hugetlbfs inodes. Currently, they
don't base their
name on "key" + basing on the "key" is kind of useless anyway (its not
unique).
- Add a big fat comment that user space programs depend on this
behavior of both the dentry name and the inode number.
I don't think, the user-space can depend on the dentry-name. It can only
depend
on inode# to match shmid. (since key is not unique esp. for key=0x00000000).
BTW, I agree that shmid is not unique even without namespaces as its
based on
seq# and we wrap seq#.
Thanks,
Badari
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]