linux-kernel - Re: Yet another borken page_count() check in invalidate_inode

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

Message-Id: <1163624265.5880.31.camel@lade.trondhjem.org>
Date:	Wed, 15 Nov 2006 15:57:45 -0500
From:	Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Cc:	Charles Edward Lever <chucklever@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Yet another borken page_count() check in
	invalidate_inode_pages2()....

On Wed, 2006-11-15 at 11:24 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:

> The protocol is
> 
> 	lock_page()
> 	set_page_writeback()
> 	->writepage()

We're not using ->writepage().

> and there are various places which assume that nobody will start new
> writeout of a locked page.  But I forget where they are - things have always
> been this way.

Huh? There has never been a requirement to lock the page if all you want
to do is call set_page_writeback(). The only reason why we want to do
that at all is to allow the VM to track that the page is under I/O. All
other operations involved in scheduling writes are protected by internal
NFS locks.
-
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/