[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <x49eg8r1bzp.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 15:39:54 -0400
From: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Eryu Guan <guaneryu@...il.com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, viro@...IV.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] direct-io: fix direct write stale data exposure from concurrent buffered read
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> writes:
> On Sat, 14 May 2016 00:25:28 +0800 Eryu Guan <guaneryu@...il.com> wrote:
>
>> Currently direct writes inside i_size on a DIO_SKIP_HOLES filesystem are
>> not allowed to allocate blocks(get_more_blocks() sets 'create' to 0
>> before calling get_block() callback), if it's a sparse file, direct
>> writes fall back to buffered writes to avoid stale data exposure from
>> concurrent buffered read. But there're two cases that can result in
>> stale data exposure are not correctly detected.
>>
>> 1. The detection for "writing inside i_size" is not sufficient, writes
>> can be treated as "extending writes" wrongly. For example, direct write
>> 1FSB to a 1FSB sparse file on ext2/3/4, starting from offset 0, in this
>> case it's writing inside i_size, but 'create' is non-zero, because
>> 'block_in_file' and '(i_size_read(inode) >> blkbits' are both zero.
>
> um, what is an "FSB"?
File System Block, as opposed to a block device block. :)
-Jeff
--
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