On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 11:45:39AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Feb 2007 11:14:55 -0800 Andrew Morton <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > If so, that might be preventable by leaving the buffer nonuptodate.
>
> oh, OK, it was buffer_new(), so zeroes are the right thing for a reader to
> see.
>
> But if it wasn't buffer_new() then the appropriate thing for the reader to
> see is what's on the disk. But __block_prepare_write() won't read a buffer
> which is fully-inside the write area from disk.
>
> And that's seemingly OK, because if a reader gets in there after the short
> copy, that reader will see the non-uptodate buffer and will populate it
> from disk.
>
> But doing that will overwrite the data which the write() caller managed to
> copy into the page before it took a fault. And that's not OK because
> block_perform_write() does iovec_iterator_advance(i, copied) in this case
> and hence will not rerun the copy after acquiring the page lock?
Hmm, yeah. This can be handled by not advancing partially into a !uptodate
buffer.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
