On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 01:34:16PM +, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-11-14 at 22:14 -0800, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > "J. Bruce Fields" writes:
> >
> > > On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 09:51:33PM +, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
> > >> On Wed, 2012-11-14 at 16:42 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote
On Wed, 2012-11-14 at 22:14 -0800, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> "J. Bruce Fields" writes:
>
> > On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 09:51:33PM +, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2012-11-14 at 16:42 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> >> > Simo's patches use them for upcalls to svcgssd. Those will always
15.11.2012 01:01, J. Bruce Fields пишет:
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 12:37:54PM +0400, Stanislav Kinsbursky wrote:
07.11.2012 22:33, J. Bruce Fields пишет:
On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 08:36:05AM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 08:10:18AM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, N
"J. Bruce Fields" writes:
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 09:51:33PM +, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
>> On Wed, 2012-11-14 at 16:42 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>> > Simo's patches use them for upcalls to svcgssd. Those will always be
>> > done from server threads.
>>
>> Any reason why you can't set
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 09:51:33PM +, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-11-14 at 16:42 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > Simo's patches use them for upcalls to svcgssd. Those will always be
> > done from server threads.
>
> Any reason why you can't set that up when you start nfsd?
Oh, r
On Wed, 2012-11-14 at 16:42 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 09:36:33PM +, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
> > On Wed, 2012-11-14 at 16:01 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 12:37:54PM +0400, Stanislav Kinsbursky wrote:
> > > > 07.11.2012 22:33, J. Bruce
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 09:36:33PM +, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-11-14 at 16:01 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 12:37:54PM +0400, Stanislav Kinsbursky wrote:
> > > 07.11.2012 22:33, J. Bruce Fields пишет:
> > > >On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 08:36:05AM -0500, J.
On Wed, 2012-11-14 at 16:01 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 12:37:54PM +0400, Stanislav Kinsbursky wrote:
> > 07.11.2012 22:33, J. Bruce Fields пишет:
> > >On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 08:36:05AM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > >>On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 08:10:18AM -0500, Christ
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 12:37:54PM +0400, Stanislav Kinsbursky wrote:
> 07.11.2012 22:33, J. Bruce Fields пишет:
> >On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 08:36:05AM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> >>On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 08:10:18AM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >>>On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 08:07:06AM -0500,
07.11.2012 22:33, J. Bruce Fields пишет:
On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 08:36:05AM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 08:10:18AM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 08:07:06AM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
So you're worried that a bug in the nfs code could modif
On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 08:36:05AM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 08:10:18AM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 08:07:06AM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > > So you're worried that a bug in the nfs code could modify the root and
> > > then not rest
On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 08:10:18AM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 08:07:06AM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > So you're worried that a bug in the nfs code could modify the root and
> > then not restore it?
>
> At least the link you pointed to earlier never sets it back.
On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 08:07:06AM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> So you're worried that a bug in the nfs code could modify the root and
> then not restore it?
At least the link you pointed to earlier never sets it back. Instead
of messing with it I'd rather have the sunrpc code use vfs_path_loo
On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 07:40:35AM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 07:06:42AM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 02:14:50PM +0400, Stanislav Kinsbursky wrote:
> > > 09.10.2012 23:35, J. Bruce Fields ??:
> > > >Cc'ing Eric since I seem to reca
On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 04:11:11PM +0400, Stanislav Kinsbursky wrote:
> 06.11.2012 16:06, J. Bruce Fields пишет:
> >On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 02:14:50PM +0400, Stanislav Kinsbursky wrote:
> >>09.10.2012 23:35, J. Bruce Fields пишет:
> >>>Cc'ing Eric since I seem to recall he suggested doing it this w
On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 07:06:42AM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 02:14:50PM +0400, Stanislav Kinsbursky wrote:
> > 09.10.2012 23:35, J. Bruce Fields ??:
> > >Cc'ing Eric since I seem to recall he suggested doing it this way?
> > >
> > >Seems OK to me, but maybe tha
06.11.2012 16:06, J. Bruce Fields пишет:
On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 02:14:50PM +0400, Stanislav Kinsbursky wrote:
09.10.2012 23:35, J. Bruce Fields пишет:
Cc'ing Eric since I seem to recall he suggested doing it this way?
Seems OK to me, but maybe that swap_root should be in common code? (Or
may
On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 02:14:50PM +0400, Stanislav Kinsbursky wrote:
> 09.10.2012 23:35, J. Bruce Fields пишет:
> >Cc'ing Eric since I seem to recall he suggested doing it this way?
> >
> >Seems OK to me, but maybe that swap_root should be in common code? (Or
> >maybe we could use set_fs_root()?)
09.10.2012 23:35, J. Bruce Fields пишет:
Cc'ing Eric since I seem to recall he suggested doing it this way?
Seems OK to me, but maybe that swap_root should be in common code? (Or
maybe we could use set_fs_root()?)
This patch is not good since, as Eric mentioned, all kernel threads share same
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 02:32:28PM +0400, Stanislav Kinsbursky wrote:
> 10.10.2012 05:23, J. Bruce Fields пишет:
> >On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 03:47:42PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >>"J. Bruce Fields" writes:
> >>
> >>>On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 01:20:48PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> "M
10.10.2012 05:23, J. Bruce Fields пишет:
On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 03:47:42PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
"J. Bruce Fields" writes:
On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 01:20:48PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
"Myklebust, Trond" writes:
On Tue, 2012-10-09 at 15:35 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
Cc
10.10.2012 06:00, Eric W. Biederman пишет:
ebied...@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) writes:
"J. Bruce Fields" writes:
On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 01:20:48PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
"Myklebust, Trond" writes:
On Tue, 2012-10-09 at 15:35 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
Cc'ing Eric sinc
10.10.2012 02:47, Eric W. Biederman пишет:
"J. Bruce Fields" writes:
On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 01:20:48PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
"Myklebust, Trond" writes:
On Tue, 2012-10-09 at 15:35 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
Cc'ing Eric since I seem to recall he suggested doing it this way?
ebied...@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) writes:
> "J. Bruce Fields" writes:
>
>> On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 01:20:48PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>> "Myklebust, Trond" writes:
>>>
>>> > On Tue, 2012-10-09 at 15:35 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>>> >> Cc'ing Eric since I seem to recall he s
On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 03:47:42PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> "J. Bruce Fields" writes:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 01:20:48PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >> "Myklebust, Trond" writes:
> >>
> >> > On Tue, 2012-10-09 at 15:35 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> >> >> Cc'ing Eric since
"J. Bruce Fields" writes:
> On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 01:20:48PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> "Myklebust, Trond" writes:
>>
>> > On Tue, 2012-10-09 at 15:35 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>> >> Cc'ing Eric since I seem to recall he suggested doing it this way?
>>
>> Yes. On second look set
On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 01:20:48PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> "Myklebust, Trond" writes:
>
> > On Tue, 2012-10-09 at 15:35 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> >> Cc'ing Eric since I seem to recall he suggested doing it this way?
>
> Yes. On second look setting fs->root won't work. We need to
"Myklebust, Trond" writes:
> On Tue, 2012-10-09 at 15:35 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>> Cc'ing Eric since I seem to recall he suggested doing it this way?
Yes. On second look setting fs->root won't work. We need to change fs.
The problem is that by default all kernel threads share fs so chang
On Tue, 2012-10-09 at 15:35 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> Cc'ing Eric since I seem to recall he suggested doing it this way?
>
> Seems OK to me, but maybe that swap_root should be in common code? (Or
> maybe we could use set_fs_root()?)
>
> I'm assuming it's up to Trond to take this.--b.
I'm
Cc'ing Eric since I seem to recall he suggested doing it this way?
Seems OK to me, but maybe that swap_root should be in common code? (Or
maybe we could use set_fs_root()?)
I'm assuming it's up to Trond to take this.--b.
On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 02:56:32PM +0400, Stanislav Kinsbursky wrote:
> To
Today, there is a problem in connecting of local SUNRPC thansports. These
transports uses UNIX sockets and connection itself is done by rpciod
workqueue.
But all local transports are connecting in rpciod context. I.e. UNIX sockets
lookup is done in context of process file system root.
This works ni
31 matches
Mail list logo
