[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080127211345.6e73fa0b.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 21:13:45 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
Cc: Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>,
Steve French <smfrench@...il.com>, swhiteho@...hat.com,
sfrench@...ba.org, vandrove@...cvut.cz,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [8/18] BKL-removal: Remove BKL from remote_llseek
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 05:38:25 +0100 Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de> wrote:
> On Monday 28 January 2008 05:13:09 Trond Myklebust wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 2008-01-28 at 03:58 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > The problem is that it's not a race in who gets to do its thing first, but a
> > > parallel reader can actually see a corrupted value from the two independent
> > > words on 32bit (e.g. during a 4GB). And this could actually completely corrupt
> > > f_pos when it happens with two racing relative seeks or read/write()s
> > >
> > > I would consider that a bug.
> >
> > I disagree. The corruption occurs because this isn't a situation that is
> > allowed by either POSIX or SUSv2/v3. Exactly what spec are you referring
> > to here?
>
> No specific spec, just general quality of implementation.
I completely agree. If one thread writes A and another writes B then the
kernel should record either A or B, not ((A & 0xffffffff00000000) | (B &
0xffffffff))
--
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