[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090318185015.GA1129@duck.suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 19:50:15 +0100
From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] fs: Avoid data corruption with blocksize < pagesize
On Thu 19-03-09 00:12:22, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 06:33:54PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > Assume the following situation:
> > Filesystem with blocksize < pagesize - suppose blocksize = 1024,
> > pagesize = 4096. File 'f' has first four blocks already allocated.
> > (line with "state:" contains the state of buffers in the page - m = mapped,
> > u = uptodate, d = dirty)
> >
> > process 1: process 2:
> >
> > write to 'f' bytes 0 - 1024
> > state: |mud,-,-,-|, page dirty
> > write to 'f' bytes 1024 - 4096:
> > __block_prepare_write() maps blocks
> > state: |mud,m,m,m|, page dirty
> > we fail to copy data -> copied = 0
> > block_write_end() does nothing
> > page gets unlocked
>
>
> If copied = 0 then in block_write_end we do
>
> page_zero_new_buffers(page, start+copied, start+len
>
> which would mean we should not see garbage.
But this will zero only *new* buffers - so if they are already allocated,
get_block() won't set new flag and they won't be zeroed...
But I'm not saying I understand why this seems to help against a corruption
under UML because we don't seem to be writing !uptodate buffers there.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
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