[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] xfs: prevent stack overflows from page cache allocation

To: Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: prevent stack overflows from page cache allocation
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 08:24:48 +1100
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20131024164115.GU1935@xxxxxxx>
References: <1382585110-1796-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20131024084803.GA28144@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20131024103751.GS2797@dastard> <20131024154220.GA19055@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20131024164115.GU1935@xxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 11:41:15AM -0500, Ben Myers wrote:
> Hey,
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 08:42:20AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 09:37:51PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > Sure, if you want to. But doing that shouldn't prevent this fix from
> > > being committed in the mean time, especially as other filesystems
> > > already use this method for avoiding these problems.
> > 
> > I'd much prefer aiming for the proper fix first.  If for some reason we
> > can't get it done in time the workaround can be applied.
> Dave probably has a customer waiting on this.

Obviously. And being a kernel where we have a fixed ABI, we can't
backport any fix that changes core code.

> If pulling this in will make a
> proper fix more difficult to do I can understand keeping the patch out.

It doesn't make a proper fix any harder - removing 2 lines of code
is trivial.

> Otherwise, can't we just remove this along with the other filesystems'
> equivalent code when the proper fix is committed?

Yes, we can.


Dave Chinner

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>