On Fri 18-05-12 20:12:10, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 01:28:29AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Thu 17-05-12 17:43:08, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 03:04:45PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > > On Wed 16-05-12 12:14:23, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > IIRC, it's a rare case (that I consider insane, BTW): read from a
> > > file with into a buffer that is a mmap()d region of the same file
> > > that has not been faulted in yet.....
> > With punch hole, the race is less insane - just punching hole in the area
> > which is accessed via mmap could race in a bad way AFAICS.
>
> Seems the simple answer to me is to prevent page faults while hole
> punching, then....
Yes, that's what I was suggesting in the beginning :) And I was asking
whether people are OK with another lock in the page fault path (in
particular in ->page_mkwrite) or whether someone has a better idea (e.g.
taking mmap_sem in the hole punching path seems possible but I'm not sure
whether that would be considered acceptable abuse).
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx"> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
[Site Home]
[Linux ARM Kernel]
[Linux ARM]
[Linux Omap]
[Fedora ARM]
[IETF Annouce]
[Security]
[Bugtraq]
[Linux]
[Linux OMAP]
[Linux MIPS]
[ECOS]
[Tools]
[DDR & Rambus]
[Asterisk Internet PBX]
[Linux API]
[Monitors]