linux-kernel - Re: page_mkwrite caller is racy?

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: <20070130015159.GA14799@ca-server1.us.oracle.com>
Date:	Mon, 29 Jan 2007 17:51:59 -0800
From:	Mark Fasheh <mark.fasheh@...cle.com>
To:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
Cc:	Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Memory Management <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	Anton Altaparmakov <aia21@....ac.uk>
Subject: Re: page_mkwrite caller is racy?

On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 12:14:24PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> This is another discussion, but do we want the page locked here? Or
> are the filesystems happy to exclude truncate themselves?

No page lock please. Generally, Ocfs2 wants to order cluster locks outside
of page locks. Also, the sparse b-tree support I'm working on right now will
need to be able to allocate in ->page_mkwrite() which would become very
nasty if we came in with the page lock - aside from the additional cluster
locks taken, ocfs2 will want to zero some adjacent pages (because we support
atomic allocation up to 1 meg).

Thanks,
	--Mark

--
Mark Fasheh
Senior Software Developer, Oracle
mark.fasheh@...cle.com
-
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/