Re: [PATCH 0/3] enhanced ESTALE error handling

[J. Bruce Fields]

On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 01:12:03PM -0500, Peter Staubach wrote:
> Chuck Lever wrote:
>> On Jan 18, 2008, at 12:30 PM, Peter Staubach wrote:
>>> I can probably imagine a situation where the pathname resolution
>>> would never finish, but I am not sure that it could ever happen
>>> in nature.
>>
>> Unless someone is doing something malicious.  Or if the server is  
>> repeatedly returning ESTALE for some reason.
>>
>
> If the server is repeatedly returning ESTALE, then the pathname
> resolution will fail to make progress and give up, return ENOENT
> to the user level.
>
> A malicious user on the network can cause so many other problems
> than just something like this too.  But, in this case, the user
> would have to predict why and when the client was issuing a
> specific operation and know whether or not to return ESTALE.
> This seems quite far fetched and quite unlikely to me.

Any idea what the consequences would be in this case?  It at least
shouldn't overflow the stack, or freeze the whole machine (because it
spins indefinitely under some crucial lock), or panic, etc.  (If the one
filesystem just becomes unusable--well, fine, what better can you hope
for in the presence of a malicious server or network?)

--b.
--
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/