[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <45F0A71C.2000800@cosmosbay.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 01:15:24 +0100
From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
To: "Michael K. Edwards" <medwards.linux@...il.com>
CC: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: sys_write() racy for multi-threaded append?
Michael K. Edwards a écrit :
> On 3/8/07, Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com> wrote:
>> Nothing in the manuals says that write() on same fd should be non racy
>> : In
>> particular file pos might be undefined. There is a reason pwrite()
>> exists.
>>
>> Kernel doesnt have to enforce thread safety as standard is quite clear.
>
> I know the standard _allows_ us to crash and burn (well, corrupt
> f_pos) when two threads race on an fd, but why would we want to?
> Wouldn't it be better to do something at least slightly sane, like add
> atomically to f_pos the expected number of number of bytes written,
> then do the write, then fix it up (again atomically) if vfs_write
> returns an unexpected pos?
Absolutely not. We dont want to slow down kernel 'just in case a fool might
want to do crazy things'
>
>> Only O_APPEND case is specially handled (and NFS might fail to handle
>> this
>> case correctly)
>
> Is it? How?
mm/filemap.c
generic_write_checks()
if (file->f_flags & O_APPEND)
*pos = i_size_read(inode);
done while inode is locked.
O_APPEND basically says : Just ignore fpos and always use the 'end of file'
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists