linux-kernel - Re: deadlock with fallocate

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: <200910111053.57159.tneumann@users.sourceforge.net>
Date:	Sun, 11 Oct 2009 10:53:56 +0200
From:	Thomas Neumann <tneumann@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, xfs-masters@....sgi.com,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: deadlock with fallocate

> Will legacy applications fail on newer kernels?  Or is it the case that
> only recently-written applications which utilise new kernel
> functionality will hit this bug?
In theory posix_fallocate has been around for a while and glibc will use 
kernel functionality if available, so applications might break. In practice it 
is perhaps not that common that applications use fallocate.

The problem is definitively fallocate related. When I replace possix_fallocate 
with the equivalent ftruncate64 call the problem goes away. (But then again 
the two calls are not really equivalent, and fallocate is the semantic that I 
need).
Furthermore the deadlocks seem to start occurring after writing more data than 
available main memory, but I did not investigate this thoroughly.

Thomas

--
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/