[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1001071707430.7821@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 17:12:29 -0800 (PST)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>
cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Please pull NFS client bugfixes....
On Thu, 7 Jan 2010, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> >
> > Because it means that you can trivially take page faults before the thing
> > is validated (think threads).
>
> Which would mean that another process/thread already has part of the
> file mmapped on the same client. I'm not arguing that have to revalidate
> in _that_ case.
No, I'm talking about the new mapping. Nothing else.
If the mmap'ing thread releases mmap_sem, and then does the revalidate,
then you can have
thread1 thread2
------- -------
mmap
map it in
release mmap_sem
page-fault the mapping before it got validated
->post_mmap()
revalidate outside mmap_sem
See? No "already part of the file mmapped" case at all. The exact mmap
that you just set up - without the revalidation having happened.
In fact, because of this kind of _fundamental_ race, I don't see why I
would ever accept any patches that add multiple mmap() down-calls at
different phases to the filesystem at the VFS layer.
A filesystem that depends on the different phases would be a fundamentally
buggy filesystem. Right now mmap is "atomic", and you can pre-populate (or
pre-verify, like NFS does) the mapping in the _knowledge_ that there are
no page faults that will populate it concurrently. Exactly because we hold
the mmap_sem for writing.
Linus
--
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