In message <[email protected]>, "Pekka Enberg" writes:
> Hi,
>
> On 10/15/07, Erez Zadok <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Pekka, with a small change to your patch (to handle time-based cache
> > coherency), your patch worked well and passed all my tests. Thanks.
> >
> > So now I wonder if we still need the patch to prevent AOP_WRITEPAGE_ACTIVATE
> > from being returned to userland. I guess we still need it, b/c even with
> > your patch, generic_writepages() can return AOP_WRITEPAGE_ACTIVATE back to
> > the VFS and we need to ensure that doesn't "leak" outside the kernel.
>
> I wonder whether _not setting_ BDI_CAP_NO_WRITEBACK implies that
> ->writepage() will never return AOP_WRITEPAGE_ACTIVATE for
> !wbc->for_reclaim case which would explain why we haven't hit this bug
> before. Hugh, Andrew?
>
> And btw, I think we need to fix ecryptfs too.
Yes, ecryptfs needs this fix too (and probably a couple of other mmap fixes
I've made to unionfs recently -- Mike Halcrow already knows :-)
Of course, running ecryptfs on top of tmpfs is somewhat odd and uncommon;
but with unionfs, users use tmpfs as the copyup branch very often.
> Pekka
Erez.
-
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]
