Re: [PATCH 3/3] Add timeout feature

[Takashi Sato]

Hi,

Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 09:36:04AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > > Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 05:52:35PM +0900, Takashi Sato wrote:
> > > > > I think that your concern is that the freezer cannot recognize the occurrence
> > > > > of a timeout and it continues the backup process and the backup data is
> > > > > corrupted finally.
> > > > What timeout should happen?  the freeze ioctl must not return until the
> > > > filesystem is a clean state and all writes are blocked.
> > > The suggestion was that *UN*freeze would return ETIMEDOUT if the
> > > filesystem had already unfrozen itself, I think.  That way you know that
> > > the snapshot you just took is worthless, at least.
> >
> > But why would the filesystem every unfreeze itself?  That defeats the
> > whole point of freezing it.
>
> I agree.  Was just trying to clarify the above point.
>
> But there have been what, 12 submissions now, with the unfreeze timeout
> in place so it's a persistent theme ;)
>
> Perhaps a demonstration of just how easy (or not easy) it is to deadlock
> a filesystem by freezing the root might be in order, at least.
>
> And even if it is relatively easy, I still maintain that it is the
> administrator's role to not inflict damage on the machine being
> administered.  There are a lot of potentially dangerous tools at root's
> disposal; why this particular one needs a nanny I'm still not quite sure.

I think we need the timeout for the case someone dirties so much data
with mmap, hence the freeze process is swapped out and cannot unfreeze.

Cheers, Takashi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/