linux-ext4 - Re: [patch 12/17] vfs: pagecache usage optimization for pagesize!=blocksize

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 6 Aug 2008 15:36:31 +1000
From:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	hifumi.hisashi@....ntt.co.jp, jack@....cz,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 12/17] vfs: pagecache usage optimization for pagesize!=blocksize

Any updates with this, please?

On Monday 04 August 2008 17:19, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Tuesday 29 July 2008 09:00, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 03:46:36PM -0700, akpm@...ux-foundation.org wrote:
> > > From: Hisashi Hifumi <hifumi.hisashi@....ntt.co.jp>
> > >
> > > When we read some part of a file through pagecache, if there is a
> > > pagecache of corresponding index but this page is not uptodate, read IO
> > > is issued and this page will be uptodate.
> >
> > I was under the impression we wanted to do this in a nicer way than
> > the hacky method?
>
> This patch unfortunately appears like it may introduce an
> uninitialized memory leak due to a data race between one
> thread initializing a buffer then marking it uptodate, and
> the other testing buffer uptodate then reading from the
> buffer (buffer, read as: page memory covered by buffer head).
>
> For reference, this is basically the same class of data race
> that I fixed 0ed361dec36945f3116ee1338638ada9a8920905
>
> I should have picked up on this before it was merged, but I
> was kind of rushed to review other things before they got
> merged.
>
> I don't think this patch got quite enough justification to
> warrant just blindly putting barriers in the buffer bitops.
> The best-case numbers for it were reasonable enough when the
> downside was only an extra branch or two in a relatively slow
> path. I don't really know how best to go from here (maybe
> someone can argue it is not a problem or come up with a better
> fix?).
>
> Thanks,
> Nick
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html