[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110911112552.GB2203@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 12:25:52 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Marco Stornelli <marco.stornelli@...il.com>
Cc: Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] xip: use i_mutex for xip_file_fault
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 12:15:04PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> write() grabs ->i_mutex on the file it's going to write to. It uses
> copy_from_user() while holding ->i_mutex; that can end up calling ->fault().
> If your data comes from the same file mmapped in your address space, you
> have xip_write_fault() called while you are in xip_file_write() and *already*
> are holding ->i_mutex on the same inode. With your patch it will, AFAICS,
> cheerfully deadlock.
Oh, wait... You are only doing that to write side of pagefault? That's
better, but not much:
thread 1: mmap the file, modify mapping
thread 2: write() to file
The former will do xip_write_fault() while holding ->mmap_sem.
The latter will do copy_from_user() from xip_file_write(), getting
pagefaults while holding ->i_mutex.
Note that we are grabbing ->mmap_sem and ->i_mutex in opposite orders.
I.e. that will deadlock on you - all you need is threads sharing the
address space.
--
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