Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 18 Dec 2000 06:49:17 -0500 (EST) | From | Alexander Viro <> | Subject | Re: kernel BUG at /usr/src/linux/include/linux/nfs_fs.h:167! - reproducible |
| |
On Mon, 18 Dec 2000, Neil Brown wrote:
> On Monday December 18, trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no wrote: > > >>>>> " " == M H VanLeeuwen <vanl@megsinet.net> writes: > > > > > Trond, Neil I don't know if this is a loopback bug or an NFS > > > bug but since nfs_fs.h was implicated so I thought one of you > > > may be interested. > > > > > Could you let me know if you know this problem has already been > > > fixed or if you need more info. > > > > Hi, > > > > As far as I'm concerned, it's a loopback bug. > > I read it the same way. > Actually, I cannot see the point of copying the "struct file"! Why > not just take a reference to it? The comment tries to justify it, but > I don't buy it.
Wish I remembered who had complained when I proposed to kill that copying... It was introduced back in 2.1.110 and back then comment looked so:
+ /* Backed by a regular file - we need to hold onto + a file structure for this file. We'll use it to + write to blocks that are not already present in + a sparse file. We create a new file structure + based on the one passed to us via 'arg'. This is + to avoid changing the file structure that the + caller is using */ +
I would be happy to get rid of that crap - it was the only reason why I had to add the sodding file_moveto() and world would be better without it. If we can kill it off - let's do it and let's take fs/file_table:file_moveto() along.
IOW, I also think that copying the struct file is wrong. IIRC, complaints were bogus - losetup requires enough priviliges to make worrying about security implications somewhat pointless.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |