Here is the second patch (patch B).
On Fri, 2005-06-10 at 14:01 +0100, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
[snip]
> B) If we cannot safely allow buffer_new buffers to "leak out" of
> __block_prepare_write(), then we simply would need to run a quick loop
> over the buffers clearing buffer_new on each of them if it is set just
> before returning "success" to the caller of __block_prepare_write().
[snip]
The patch for this is simple, too (it is below).
> Andrew/Linus, I would suggest that you apply at least A and perhaps B if
> you deem it necessary or want to be on the safe side.
>
> Having had a look at the code it would seem perfectly safe to leave
> buffer_new() set and ignore patch B but I may be wrong which is why I
> did both.
Signed-off-by: Anton Altaparmakov <[email protected]>
Best regards,
Anton
--
Anton Altaparmakov <aia21 at cam.ac.uk> (replace at with @)
Unix Support, Computing Service, University of Cambridge, CB2 3QH, UK
Linux NTFS maintainer / IRC: #ntfs on irc.freenode.net
WWW: http://linux-ntfs.sf.net/ & http://www-stu.christs.cam.ac.uk/~aia21/
--- linux-2.6.git/fs/buffer.c.old2 2005-06-10 13:35:03.000000000 +0100
+++ linux-2.6.git/fs/buffer.c 2005-06-10 13:38:14.000000000 +0100
@@ -1992,9 +1992,14 @@ static int __block_prepare_write(struct
if (!buffer_uptodate(*wait_bh))
err = -EIO;
}
- if (!err)
+ if (!err) {
+ bh = head;
+ do {
+ if (buffer_new(bh))
+ clear_buffer_new(bh);
+ } while ((bh = bh->b_this_page) != head);
return err;
-
+ }
/* Error case: */
/*
* Zero out any newly allocated blocks to avoid exposing stale
-
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]
