Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Mon, 18 Sep 2000 00:00:58 -0400 (EDT) | From | Alexander Viro <> | Subject | Re: The INN/mmap bug |
| |
On Sun, 17 Sep 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Yeah. See my other mail - I don't think the patch is needed at all, > although I'm convinced that it would actually hide the problem for the > particular case of INN (zeroing out the partial block is not an issue > there, as truncate will have done it - it's really only protection against > badly behaved software and shouldn't matter to any "regular" use).
True, but that way we also get the consistent rules wrt. async/sync.
> > We know that ->writepage() is called and we know that data doesn't get > > to the disk. How can it happen? If we can... Oh, fsck. Linus, we could > > very well lose the buffers since the moment when page had been read. > > See what happens? We recreate the buffer ring for the page and it's > > nowhere near "everything uptodate" state. > > Yeah. See my suggested fix in the other mail. We just must not read in > buffers for pages that are already up-to-date.
We might as well do it in create_empty_buffers(), FWIW. Do you see any case when it would mean extra work? I'm thinking about the following:
if (page is uptodate) do get_block(...,0) for all buffers and mark them uptodate
in the end of buffer-ring creation. Comments?
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |