[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <84144f020710150447o94b1babo8b6e6a647828465f@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 14:47:52 +0300
From: "Pekka Enberg" <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To: "Erez Zadok" <ezk@...sunysb.edu>
Cc: "Hugh Dickins" <hugh@...itas.com>, "Ryan Finnie" <ryan@...nie.org>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
cjwatson@...ntu.com, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: msync(2) bug(?), returns AOP_WRITEPAGE_ACTIVATE to userland
Hi,
On 10/15/07, Erez Zadok <ezk@...sunysb.edu> wrote:
> Pekka, with a small change to your patch (to handle time-based cache
> coherency), your patch worked well and passed all my tests. Thanks.
>
> So now I wonder if we still need the patch to prevent AOP_WRITEPAGE_ACTIVATE
> from being returned to userland. I guess we still need it, b/c even with
> your patch, generic_writepages() can return AOP_WRITEPAGE_ACTIVATE back to
> the VFS and we need to ensure that doesn't "leak" outside the kernel.
I wonder whether _not setting_ BDI_CAP_NO_WRITEBACK implies that
->writepage() will never return AOP_WRITEPAGE_ACTIVATE for
!wbc->for_reclaim case which would explain why we haven't hit this bug
before. Hugh, Andrew?
And btw, I think we need to fix ecryptfs too.
Pekka
-
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