Re: [PATCH 1 of 2] block_page_mkwrite() Implementation V2

[Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>]

Chris Mason wrote:
> On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 08:09:19PM +0800, David Woodhouse wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 11:19 +0100, David Howells wrote:
> >
> > > The start and end points passed to block_prepare_write() delimit the region of
> > > the page that is going to be modified.  This means that prepare_write()
> > > doesn't need to fill it in if the page is not up to date. 
> >
> > Really? Is it _really_ going to be modified? Even if the pointer
> > userspace gave to write() is bogus, and is going to fault half-way
> > through the copy_from_user()?
>
>
> This is why there are so many variations on copy_from_user that zero on
> faults.  One way or another, the prepare_write/commit_write pair are
> responsible for filling it in.

I'll add to David's question about David's comment on David's patch, yes
it will be modified but in that case it would be zero-filled as Chris
says. However I believe this is incorrect behaviour.

It is possible to easily fix that so it would only happen via a tiny race
window (where the source memory gets unmapped at just the right time)
however nobody seemed to interested (just by checking the return value of
fault_in_pages_readable).

The buffered write patches I'm working on fix that (among other things) of
course. But they do away with prepare_write and introduce new aops, and
they indeed must not expect the full range to have been written to.

--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/