On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 15:58:07 -0600 Michael Halcrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > rc = ecryptfs_interpose(lower_dentry, ecryptfs_dentry, > > > directory_inode->i_sb, 0); > > > > Will this cause an undesirable log storm if the underlying fs runs > > out of space? > > When you're bumping up against the end of your storage space, you will > get a lot more that just this message in your logs. There are printk's > in ecryptfs_write_lower(), ecryptfs_encrypt_page(), ecryptfs_write(), > and ecryptfs_write_metadata_to_contents() that will get pretty > noisy. Is it worth wrapping those in a higher level of verbosity? The consequences of this can actually be pretty harmful. syslogd typically does sychronous writes so a random full disk can cause a seek storm over on the log disk and a runaway ecryptfs-using application could pretty quickly exhaust the space on the log disk. So I'd suggest that sometime you go through the fs and find any such user-triggerable printks and fix them up. The most robust way of fixing them up would be to delete them, or make them dependent on CONFIG_ECRYPTFS_DEBUG. Fiddling with the facility levels would help, but it just lessens the probability rather than fixing it completely. -- 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/
