Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: DoS with POSIX file locks? | From | Arjan van de Ven <> | Date | Mon, 20 Mar 2006 14:30:41 +0100 |
| |
On Mon, 2006-03-20 at 14:24 +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > > > Right. Um. I took it out back in March 2003 after enough people > > > > convinced me it wasn't worth trying to account for all the memory > > > > processes use, and the userbeans project would take care of it anyway. > > > > Haha. > > > > > > > > It's hard to fix the accounting. You have to deal with one thread > > > > allocating the lock, and then a different thread freeing it. We never > > > > actually accounted for posix locks (which are the ones we really needed > > > > to!) and on occasion had current->locks go negative, with all kinds of > > > > associated badness. > > > > > > Things look fairly straightforward if the accounting is done in > > > files_struct instead of task_struct. > > > > that's the wrong place; you can send fd's over unix sockets to other > > processes.... > > POSIX locks have no association with fd's. Only the inode and the > "owner" is relevant
but the point is that with unix sockets you can send inodes to other processes.. who don't share files_struct
- 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/
| |