From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932572AbWBVJ51 (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Feb 2006 04:57:27 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932575AbWBVJ51 (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Feb 2006 04:57:27 -0500 Received: from nproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.182.202]:57326 "EHLO nproxy.gmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932572AbWBVJ50 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Feb 2006 04:57:26 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=GlJrRNn6a0RRMXAWJhB7PEsVLSFVDpHliWBb2HiQQLvgMRirwiS6dsmi5VfrRxabyxPxMJFeAcAK9l/Ohx4krtoGQDy5/EI2qB5aFwJap/jKxWjJbXwndATlWreB/SJvtaZ4kDn3VOa0DA2o2xAD7dkhZkWnGx8NSQLh3q+YN5M= Message-ID: <69304d110602220157i71a1455cped625a19205cc4a7@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 10:57:24 +0100 From: "Antonio Vargas" To: "Oleg Drokin" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: FMODE_EXEC or alike? In-Reply-To: <20060221142159.GI5733@linuxhacker.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Disposition: inline References: <20060220221948.GC5733@linuxhacker.ru> <20060220215122.7aa8bbe5.akpm@osdl.org> <1140530396.7864.63.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> <69304d110602210615m491829ccx9ba84edc8dafe1f7@mail.gmail.com> <20060221142159.GI5733@linuxhacker.ru> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2/21/06, Oleg Drokin wrote: > Hello! > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 03:15:53PM +0100, Antonio Vargas wrote: > > > > We would need to understand whether this is needed by other distributed > > > > filesystems and if so, whether the proposed implementation is suitable and > > > > sufficient. > > > Hmm.... We might possibly want to use that for NFSv4 at some point in > > > order to deny write access to the file to other clients while it is in > > > use. > > When done with regards to failing a write if anyone has mapped the > > file for executing it, or failing the execute if it's open/mmaped for > > write, I can't really see the difference between local, remote and > > clustered filesystems... > > Currently this is only possible locally, when both execution and opening > for writing is performed on the same node. Then VFS enforces ETXTBSY. > But if you do exec on one node and open for writing on another, > VFSes on those nodes have no idea on what happens on all other nodes. > Thanks for the enlightement Oleg, I had assumed the owner of the file to write over the executable while it's being executed... sort of self-modifying code, but s/self/external/ ;) Greetz, Antonio Vargas aka winden of network