linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] VM: Fix the gfp_mask in invalidate_complete

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Tue, 10 Oct 2006 13:49:56 +0100
From:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To:	Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, Steve Dickson <SteveD@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] VM: Fix the gfp_mask in invalidate_complete_page2 

Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com> wrote:

> No. Invalidatepage does precisely the wrong thing: it invalidates dirty
> data instead of committing it to disk. If you need to have the data
> invalidated, then you should call truncate_inode_pages().

Hmmm... Good point, but you still need to handle try_to_release_page() failing,
but that only means checking the return value of invalidate_inode_pages2_range
(which you don't do, I notice).  Or is it defined that if must succeed if
__GFP_WAIT is set?

With the two-phase thing, I think I'm thinking of the wrong portion of that
file (I'm thinking of truncate_inode_pages_range()).

Should invalidate_inode_pages2_range() take a gfp_t argument to pass on down?

David
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/