[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1302543595-sup-4352@think>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 13:41:16 -0400
From: Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
Cc: djwong <djwong@...ibm.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Joel Becker <jlbec@...lplan.org>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Mingming Cao <mcao@...ibm.com>,
linux-scsi <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] block integrity: Fix write after checksum calculation problem
Excerpts from Jeff Layton's message of 2011-04-11 12:42:29 -0400:
> > @@ -5839,6 +5844,15 @@ int ext4_page_mkwrite(struct vm_area_struct *vma, struct vm_fault *vmf)
> > if (ret < 0)
> > goto out_unlock;
> > ret = 0;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * write_begin/end might have created a dirty page and someone
> > + * could wander in and start the IO. Make sure that hasn't
> > + * happened.
> > + */
> > + lock_page(page);
> > + wait_on_page_writeback(page);
> > + unlock_page(page);
>
> nit:
>
> The callers of page_mkwrite always lock the page afterward if you
> return from page_mkwrite with it unlocked. If you plan to take page
> lock anyway, it's probably slightly more efficient not to unlock it and
> instead return VM_FAULT_LOCKED.
>
Actually this isn't a nit. Keeping the page locked closes an important
hole where it can become writeback again. It might fix the last
remaining problem.
-chris
--
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