Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: DoS with POSIX file locks? | From | Miklos Szeredi <> | Date | Wed, 22 Mar 2006 07:21:54 +0100 |
| |
> Concrete breakage. Something like: > > clone(CLONE_FILES) > /* in child */ > lock > execve > lock > > w/out the kludge[1], the lock fails. I should have a test program about > that I wrote to test this, although it was originally triggered via some > LTP or LSB type of test (don't recall which). > > thanks, > -chris > > [1] happy to see it go.
We all agree on this then.
I'm just little paranoid about a real-world app (LTP/LSB don't matter) relying on the current semantics.
But maybe there's no other way to find out, than to remove steal_locks() and see if anybody complains.
> i concur with Trond, there's no sane way to get rid of it w/out > formalizing CLONE_FILES and locks on exec
Probably there is. It would involve allocating a separate lock-owner-ID stored in files_struct but separate from it. But it's more complicated than simply not propagating locks on exec in the CLONE_FILES case.
Miklos - 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/
| |