[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <53486067.6090506@mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 14:36:39 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@...il.com>,
Tony Battersby <tonyb@...ernetics.com>
CC: linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] shm: add sealing API
On 04/11/2014 02:31 PM, David Herrmann wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Tony Battersby <tonyb@...ernetics.com> wrote:
>> Exactly. For O_DIRECT, that would be the call to get_user_pages_fast()
>> from dio_refill_pages() in fs/direct-io.c, which is ultimately called
>> from blkdev_direct_IO().
>
> If you drop mmap_sem after pinning a page without taking a write-ref,
> you break i_mmap_writable / VM_DENYWRITE. In memfd I rely on
> i_mmap_writable to work, same thing is done by exec() (and the old,
> now disabled, MAP_DENYWRITE).
>
> I don't know whether I should care. I mean, everyone pinning pages and
> writing to it without holding the mmap_sem has to take a write-ref for
> each page or it breaks i_mmap_writable. So this seems to be a bug in
> direct-IO, not in anyone relying on it, right?
A quick grep of the kernel tree finds exactly zero code paths
incrementing i_mmap_writable outside of mmap and fork.
Or do you mean a different kind of write ref? What am I missing here?
--Andy
--
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