linux-ext4 - Re: Locking between writeback and truncate paths?

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:	Tue, 27 Apr 2010 10:05:39 +1000
From:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Cc:	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Locking between writeback and truncate paths?

On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 08:32:40PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> Any thoughts or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.  I've looked
> at the xfs and btrfs code for some ideas, but dealing with current
> writeback and truncate is nasty, especially if there's a subsequent
> delalloc write happening in parallel with the writeback and immediately
> after the truncate.  After studying the code quite extensively over the
> weekend, I'm still not entirely sure that XFS and btrfs gets this case
> right (I know ext4 currently doesn't).  Of course, it's not clear
> whether users will trip against this in practice, but it's nevertheless
> still a botch, and I'm wondering if it's simpler to avoid the concurrent
> vmtruncate/writeback case entirely.

What case are you concerned that is XFS not getting right?

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com
--
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