[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1223457442.1378.42.camel@lappy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2008 11:17:22 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
Cc: Hisashi Hifumi <hifumi.hisashi@....ntt.co.jp>,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Subject: Re: [RESEND] [PATCH] VFS: make file->f_pos access atomic on 32bit
arch
On Wed, 2008-10-08 at 10:32 +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> About dup() syscall, it wont help, since old and new descriptor points to
> the same "struct file", definitly sharing file position, since first Unixes.
>
> To quote the fine manual :
>
> After successful return of dup or dup2, the old and new descriptors may
> be used interchangeably. They share locks, file position pointers and
> flags; for example, if the file position is modified by using lseek on
> one of the descriptors, the position is also changed for the other.
Ah, ok. I'll try to remember for next time I write a multi-threaded user
app (which given the size of my kernel todo list won't be any time soon
I guess ;-)
> pread()/pwrite() are used my multi-threaded applications that want to share
> a single "struct file".
Yeah, pread/pwrite is good.
> Or they must use some form of synchronization around
> regular read()/write()/lseek() calls.
>
> There is no generic f_pos race, only buggy applications.
Agreed.
--
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