[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140412135906.GC13837@thunk.org>
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2014 09:59:06 -0400
From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
xfs@....sgi.com, ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] fs: Remove i_size check from do_fallocate
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 08:57:44PM +0200, Lukas Czerner wrote:
> Currently in do_fallocate in collapse range case we're checking whether
> offset + len is not bigger than i_size. However there is nothing which
> would prevent i_size from changing so the check is pointless. It should
> be done in the file system itself and the file system needs to make sure
> that i_size is not going to change.
>
> As it is now we can easily crash kernel by having two processes doing
> truncate and fallocate collapse range at the same time. This can be
> reproduced on ext4 and it is theoretically possible on xfs even though I
> was not able to trigger it with this simple test.
>
> This commit removes the check from do_fallocate and adds it to the file
> system.
>
> Signed-off-by: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>
> ---
> fs/ext4/extents.c | 11 +++++++++--
> fs/open.c | 8 --------
> fs/xfs/xfs_file.c | 10 +++++++++-
> 3 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
Looks good to me. Do the xfs folks mind if I carry this in the ext4
tree and push it to Linus shortly after -rc1? If so, please send me
an ack'ed by.
If folks have a strong preference to handle this differently, let me
know.
Cheers,
- Ted
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists