On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 16:04:28 +0100, Helge Hafting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You won't get .tar or .tar.gz support in the VFS, for a few simple reasons:
> 1. .tar and .tar.gz are complicated formats, and are therefore better
>left to userland.
Agreed that .tar.gz is a complicated format,
Apologies, things have been hectic at Namesys.
Vs, please review tomorrow and comment.
Hans
Laurent Riffard wrote:
Hello,
I posted this patch last week and nobody replied.
So, if there is no objections, Andrew please apply.
Thank you.
Message original
Sujet: [PATCH] reiser4: fix a
Laurent Riffard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This patch fix a "use after kfree" bug in reiser4_parse_options.
I'll add that to -mm. In future, please don't allow your email client to
wordwrap patches. Thanks.
Hello,
I posted this patch last week and nobody replied.
So, if there is no objections, Andrew please apply.
Thank you.
Message original
Sujet: [PATCH] reiser4: fix a use after free bug in
reiser4_parse_options
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 00:09:36 +0100
De: Laurent Riffard <[EMAIL PROT
* Jeff Mahoney ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Excellent. Thanks. Preliminary testing works as expected (ie: deadlocks
> don't occur, xattrs/ is removed when owning file is deleted)
>
> I've integrated the changes into my patch set. With those issues
> addressed, would you feel these would be appropr
--
and then at Fri, 19 Nov 2004 07:41:24 +, it was written ...
>"Re: 2.6.10-rc2-mm1: oops when accessing reiser4 fs's(maybe fix
>provided)" on this very same list, since Mathieu Segaud seemed to
>have >problems similar to mine. This did indeed fix my bootup
>oopsing proble
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stephen Smalley wrote:
| On Mon, 2004-11-22 at 13:04, Jeff Mahoney wrote:
|
|>Yes, you're right. The isec->initialized check means that code never
|>gets executed.
|
|
| Ok. How about the untested diff below relative to your patch? It
| removes the un
>>(Hint - "file as directory" broke a number of programs that didn't
>>expect that a file *could* be a directory, when run on a reiser4
>>filesystem...)
>
>It broke extraordinarily few.
(The fewer the better.)
That's good news, and frankly, I did not expect anything else. That's because
either pr
On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 06:59:02PM +0200, Markus Törnqvist wrote:
>
>Nov 21 21:45:11 shrike kernel: kernel BUG at
>fs/reiser4/plugin/file/tail_conversion.c:58!
>
http://mjt.nysv.org/reiser/2004.11.22.forensics/
The first two files are from something vs sent me.
As it says on the bottom, I could
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(Hint - "file as directory" broke a number of programs that didn't
expect that a file *could* be a directory, when run on a reiser4
filesystem...)
It broke extraordinarily few.
Tomas Carnecky wrote:
Helge Hafting wrote:
I recommend looking at archived threads about file as directory,
you'll find many more arguments. Currently there is one kind
of support for archive files - loop mounts over files containing
filesystem images. These are not compressed though.
Isn't reis
On Mon, 2004-11-22 at 13:04, Jeff Mahoney wrote:
> Yes, you're right. The isec->initialized check means that code never
> gets executed.
Ok. How about the untested diff below relative to your patch? It
removes the unnecessary code, replaces the unused inherits flag field
(legacy from earlier cod
>Go back and re-read the whole flame-fest, understand all the points
>raised, and let us know when you have a workable proposal.
>
>(Hint - "file as directory" broke a number of programs that didn't
>expect that a file *could* be a directory, when run on a reiser4
>filesystem...)
So let's keep it
>> A straight forward question. Wouldn't adding a "file as a directory"
>> mechanism more logical in VFS itself, rather than having each fs (like
>> reiser4) to implement it seperately?
>
>wouldn't it be better if such things would be implemented in a library?
>use gnome-vfs, or try to get a vfs l
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stephen Smalley wrote:
| On Sat, 2004-11-20 at 19:13, Jeffrey Mahoney wrote:
|
|>diff -ruNpX dontdiff linux-2.6.9/security/selinux/hooks.c
linux-2.6.9.selinux/security/selinux/hooks.c
|>--- linux-2.6.9/security/selinux/hooks.c 2004-11-19 14:40:58.
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 19:24:36 +0530, Amit Gud said:
> A straight forward question. Wouldn't adding a "file as a directory"
> mechanism more logical in VFS itself,
There was quite the flame-fest on the lkml a while back regarding
how the semantics of "file as a directory" should operate. There's
On Sat, 2004-11-20 at 19:13, Jeffrey Mahoney wrote:
> diff -ruNpX dontdiff linux-2.6.9/security/selinux/hooks.c
> linux-2.6.9.selinux/security/selinux/hooks.c
> --- linux-2.6.9/security/selinux/hooks.c 2004-11-19 14:40:58.0
> -0500
> +++ linux-2.6.9.selinux/security/selinux/hooks.c
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> Actually, I think we need a new flag field in the inode_security_struct
> to explicitly mark these "private" inodes for SELinux, so that
> inode_has_perm() can skip permission checking on them while still
> applying checks to any other inodes that may
hoi :)
On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 08:34:02AM -0700, Zan Lynx wrote:
> > The kernel already provides all methods that are neccessary to do that.
> > So there is no need to implement it in the kernel.
>
> There are already several things in filesystems that don't strictly
> belong inside the kernel.
Helge Hafting wrote:
I recommend looking at archived threads about file as directory,
you'll find many more arguments. Currently there is one kind
of support for archive files - loop mounts over files containing
filesystem images. These are not compressed though.
Isn't reiserfs trying to implemen
I'm setting the Cc to the list, these questions may be relevant
to other people with the same issues and I think they should probably
reply as well :)
>>>I do an apt-get source --build crystalspace (but some others
>>>on the list said they used apt-get update, which I haven't tested)
>>>Anyway, z
On Mon, 2004-11-22 at 08:35, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> Don't we also need to modify inode_has_perm() to skip checking if the
> inode has the kernel SID (as is already done by socket_has_perm) to
> avoid the search checks when the reiserfs code looks up xattrs?
> Otherwise, we'll see access attempts
On Mon, 2004-11-22 at 15:37 +0100, Martin Waitz wrote:
> hoi :)
>
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 07:24:36PM +0530, Amit Gud wrote:
> > A straight forward question. Wouldn't adding a "file as a directory"
> > mechanism more logical in VFS itself, rather than having each fs (like
> > reiser4) to impleme
Amit Gud wrote:
Hi people,
A straight forward question. Wouldn't adding a "file as a directory"
mechanism more logical in VFS itself, rather than having each fs (like
reiser4) to implement it seperately? My vision is to give archive-file
Such support may happen for a few fs'es - people who
want
On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 07:24:36PM +0530, Amit Gud wrote:
> I'd be happy to share my proposal.
So why don't you post your patches for review?
hoi :)
On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 07:24:36PM +0530, Amit Gud wrote:
> A straight forward question. Wouldn't adding a "file as a directory"
> mechanism more logical in VFS itself, rather than having each fs (like
> reiser4) to implement it seperately?
wouldn't it be better if such things would be im
Hi people,
A straight forward question. Wouldn't adding a "file as a directory"
mechanism more logical in VFS itself, rather than having each fs (like
reiser4) to implement it seperately? My vision is to give archive-file
(.tar, .tar.gz, ...) support in the VFS itself, and of course
transparent t
On Sat, 2004-11-20 at 19:13, Jeffrey Mahoney wrote:
> diff -ruNpX dontdiff linux-2.6.9/security/selinux/hooks.c
> linux-2.6.9.selinux/security/selinux/hooks.c
> --- linux-2.6.9/security/selinux/hooks.c 2004-11-19 14:40:58.0
> -0500
> +++ linux-2.6.9.selinux/security/selinux/hooks.c
i have quite some machines running with 2.6.9-rc4-mmSomething, with
reiser4, running perfectly, (2 of them with reiser4 as root fs) they
have like 4 days in uptime, average. (since quite often there are
rebooted to test stuff in another install)
my workstation, reiser4 as storage, it runs perfect,
On Saturday 20 November 2004 20:02, you wrote:
> Christian Mayrhuber wrote:
>
> >Hi,
> >
> >I did some runs of mongo to see how the journaling filesystems compare to
each
> >other on a recent kernel.
> >My focus has been how the fs's compare with enabled acls and xattrs.
> >
> >Summary:
> >-
> Jan Kara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > What prevents vfs_quota_off() from racing with unmount?
> > >
> > > If you look at, say, sync_filesystems() you'll see that we take ->s_umount
> > > and then test ->s_root to check that we didn't race with an unmount
> > > attempt.
> > I tho
Jan Kara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > What prevents vfs_quota_off() from racing with unmount?
> >
> > If you look at, say, sync_filesystems() you'll see that we take ->s_umount
> > and then test ->s_root to check that we didn't race with an unmount
> > attempt.
> I thought that the sync
> Jan Kara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > +static ssize_t ext2_quota_write(struct super_block *sb, int type,
> > + const char *data, size_t len, loff_t off)
> > +{
> > + struct inode *inode = sb_dqopt(sb)->files[type];
> > + unsigned long blk = off >> EXT2_BLOCK_SI
>
> What prevents vfs_quota_off() from racing with unmount?
>
> If you look at, say, sync_filesystems() you'll see that we take ->s_umount
> and then test ->s_root to check that we didn't race with an unmount
> attempt.
I thought that the sync_fs and stuff is guarded by the fact that quota
code
34 matches
Mail list logo
