linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm/filemap: do not allocate cache pages beyond end of file at read

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: <CAHk-=wimHFUTrEiP-m8hKi78NRoaGtwG06=Pqe3TghmsUQL9Xg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 30 Oct 2019 08:02:14 +0100
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
Cc:     Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/filemap: do not allocate cache pages beyond end of
 file at read

On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 7:50 AM Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill@...temov.name> wrote:
>
> I don't know much about filesystems, but can't size of file change after
> the open() under network filesystem? Revlidation on read looks like an
> requirement anyway, no?

Requirement? No. But QoS issue, yes.

But note that NFS already does that. Look at nfs_file_read(), and
notice how it's not using generic_file_buffered_read() directly, it's
doing its own thing first with checking for direct-IO, but then doing
that nfs_revalidate_mapping() that checks whether caches should be
re-validated.

It's not just size of the file, the actual cached contents may need
invalidating too etc.

And note how the generic page cache reader doesn't need to care. If
what the generic code does isn't enough, or is the wrong thing, the
filesystem simply shouldn't use it, or, like NFS, do its own thing
first/last.

So I think the "some filesystems may have other rules" is irrelevant.
If they do have other rules, it's _their_ issue, not the issue of the
generic page cache read logic.

             Linus