linux-kernel - Re: msync(2) bug(?), returns AOP_WRITEPAGE

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: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0711172103040.10619@blonde.wat.veritas.com>
Date:	Sat, 17 Nov 2007 21:24:01 +0000 (GMT)
From:	Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>
To:	Erez Zadok <ezk@...sunysb.edu>
cc:	Dave Hansen <haveblue@...ibm.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	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 

On Tue, 13 Nov 2007, Erez Zadok wrote:
> 
> I posted all of these patches just now.  You're CC'ed.  Hopefully Andrew can
> pull from my unionfs.git branch soon.
> 
> You also reported in your previous emails some hangs/oopses while doing make
> -j 20 in unionfs on top of a single tmpfs, using -mm.  After several days,
> I've not been able to reproduce this w/ my latest set of patches.  If you
> can send me your .config and the specs on the h/w you're using (cpus, mem,
> etc.), I'll see if I can find something similar to it on my end and run the
> same tests.

I'm glad to report that this unionfs, not the one in 2.6.24-rc2-mm1
but the one including those 9 patches you posted, now gets through
my testing with tmpfs without a problem.  I do still get occasional
"unionfs: new lower inode mtime (bindex=0, name=<directory>)"
messages, but nothing worse seen yet: a big improvement.

I deceived myself for a while that the danger of shmem_writepage
hitting its BUG_ON(entry->val) was dealt with too; but that's wrong,
I must go back to working out an escape from that one (despite never
seeing it).

I did think you could clean up the doubled set_page_dirtys,
but it's of no consequence.

Hugh

--- 2.6.24-rc2-mm1+9/fs/unionfs/mmap.c	2007-11-17 12:23:30.000000000 +0000
+++ linux/fs/unionfs/mmap.c	2007-11-17 20:22:29.000000000 +0000
@@ -56,6 +56,7 @@ static int unionfs_writepage(struct page
 	copy_highpage(lower_page, page);
 	flush_dcache_page(lower_page);
 	SetPageUptodate(lower_page);
+	set_page_dirty(lower_page);
 
 	/*
 	 * Call lower writepage (expects locked page).  However, if we are
@@ -66,12 +67,11 @@ static int unionfs_writepage(struct page
 	 * success.
 	 */
 	if (wbc->for_reclaim) {
-		set_page_dirty(lower_page);
 		unlock_page(lower_page);
 		goto out_release;
 	}
+
 	BUG_ON(!lower_mapping->a_ops->writepage);
-	set_page_dirty(lower_page);
 	clear_page_dirty_for_io(lower_page); /* emulate VFS behavior */
 	err = lower_mapping->a_ops->writepage(lower_page, wbc);
 	if (err < 0)
-
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/