linux-kernel - Re: [rfc][patch 0/3] a faster buffered write deadlock fix?

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: <20070209020954.4951256e.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Fri, 9 Feb 2007 02:09:54 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Cc:	Linux Filesystems <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [rfc][patch 0/3] a faster buffered write deadlock fix?

On Fri, 9 Feb 2007 10:54:05 +0100 Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de> wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 12:41:01AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Thu,  8 Feb 2007 14:07:15 +0100 (CET) Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de> wrote:
> > 
> > > So I have finally finished a first slightly-working draft of my new aops
> > > op (perform_write) proposal. I would be interested to hear comments about
> > > it.  Most of my issues and concerns are in the patch headers themselves,
> > > so reply to them.
> > > 
> > > The patches are against my latest buffered-write-fix patchset.
> > 
> > What happened with Linus's proposal to instantiate the page as pinned,
> > non-uptodate, unlocked and in pagecache while we poke the user address?
> 
> That's still got a deadlock,

It does?

>  and also it doesn't work if we want to lock
> the page when performing a minor fault (which I want to fix fault vs
> invalidate),

It's hard to discuss this without a description of what you want to fix
there, and a description of how you plan to fix it.

> and also assumes nobody's ->nopage locks the page or
> requires any resources that are held by prepare_write (something not
> immediately clear to me with the cluster filesystems, at least).

The nopage handler is filemap_nopage().  Are there any exceptions to that?

> But that all becomes legacy path, so do we really care? Supposing fs
> maintainers like perform_write, then after the main ones have implementations
> we could switch over to the slow-but-correct prepare_write legacy path.
> Or we could leave it, or we could use Linus's slightly-less-buggy scheme...
> by that point I expect I'd be sick of arguing about it ;)

It's worth "arguing" about.  This is write().  What matters more??
-
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/