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]
Date:	Tue, 16 Oct 2007 03:35:08 -0600
From:	ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
	"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rd: Preserve the dirty bit in init_page_buffers()

Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au> writes:

> On Tuesday 16 October 2007 08:40, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> The problem:  When we are trying to free buffers try_to_free_buffers()
>> will look at ramdisk pages with clean buffer heads and remove the
>> dirty bit from the page.  Resulting in ramdisk pages with data that get
>> removed from the page cache.  Ouch!
>>
>> Buffer heads appear on ramdisk pages when a filesystem calls
>> __getblk() which through a series of function calls eventually calls
>> init_page_buffers().
>>
>> So to fix the mismatch between buffer head and page state this patch
>> modifies init_page_buffers() to transfer the dirty bit from the page to
>> the buffer heads like we currently do for the uptodate bit.
>>
>> This patch is safe as only __getblk calls init_page_buffers, and
>> there are only two implementations of block devices cached in the
>> page cache.  The generic implementation in block_dev.c and the
>> implementation in rd.c.
>>
>> The generic implementation of block devices always does everything
>> in terms of buffer heads so it always has buffer heads allocated
>> before a page is marked dirty so this change does not affect it.
>
> This is probably a good idea. Was this causing the reiserfs problems?
> If so, I think we should be concentrating on what the real problem
> is with reiserfs... (or at least why this so obviously correct
> looking patch is wrong).

I think it was my cleanup patch that was sitting on top of this,
That caused the problems.

Eric
-
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