| To: | Stephen Lord <lord@xxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: the shell will make the xfs fs locked |
| From: | Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 3 Oct 2002 03:49:57 +0200 |
| Cc: | tom wang <wddi_1976@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <1033609242.1051.7.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20021003012732.63796.qmail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1033609242.1051.7.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.3.22.1i |
On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 08:40:40PM -0500, Steve Lord wrote: > On Wed, 2002-10-02 at 20:27, tom wang wrote: > > > > > > Hope you will be soon fix this problem. > > because we are now testing xfs filesystem and > > decide wether use xfs as the file server in our > > product. > > The particular scenario you are testing created 64K > extents in a file before it died here. What you are > doing here does not bear a lot of resemblance to > any reasonable application I can think of. > > As Eric said, this is not a simple thing to fix, and > probably not something which will get fixed completely > for a while. It still looks like a kind of security/DoS problem. Is there a simple way to check for the condition and -EINVAL or EIO in this case at least ? -Andi |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: the shell will make the xfs fs locked, Stephen Lord |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: the shell will make the xfs fs locked, tom wang |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: the shell will make the xfs fs locked, Stephen Lord |
| Next by Thread: | Re: the shell will make the xfs fs locked, tom wang |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |