(sorry if this is a resend... something bad seems to have happened to me)
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 08:51:49 -0700 Badari Pulavarty <[email protected]> wrote:
This code doesn't have all the ghastly tricks which we deploy to handle
concurrent truncate.
Do I need to ? Baaahh!! I don't want to deal with them.
Nick, can you think of any serious consequences of a read/truncate race in
there? I can't..
As it doesn't allow writes, then I _think_ it should be OK. If you
ever did want to add write(2) support, then you would have transient
zeroes problems.
But I'm not completely sure.. we've had a lot of (and still have
some known and probably unknown) bugs just in that single
generic_mapping_read function, most of which are due to our rabid
aversion to doing any locking whatsoever there.
So why not just hold i_mutex around the whole thing to be safe?
--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
-
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]
