lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Feb]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 2.0, 2.2, 2.4, 2.5: fsync buffer race
On Sun, 2 Feb 2003, Andrew Morton wrote:

> Mikulas Patocka <mikulas@artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> wrote:
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > there's a race condition in filesystem
> >
> > let's have a two inodes that are placed in the same buffer.
> >
> > call fsync on inode 1
> > it goes down to ext2_update_inode [update == 1]
> > it calls ll_rw_block at the end
> > ll_rw_block starts to write buffer
> > ext2_update_inode waits on buffer
> >
> > while the buffer is writing, another process calls fsync on inode 2
> > it goes again to ext2_update_inode
> > it calls ll_rw_block
> > ll_rw_block sees buffer locked and exits immediatelly
> > ext2_update_inode waits for buffer
> > the first write finished, ext2_update_inode exits and changes made by
> > second proces to inode 2 ARE NOT WRITTEN TO DISK.
> >
>
> hmm, yes. This is a general weakness in the ll_rw_block() interface. It is
> not suitable for data-integrity writeouts, as you've pointed out.
>
> A suitable fix would be do create a new
>
> void wait_and_rw_block(...)
> {
> wait_on_buffer(bh);
> ll_rw_block(...);
> }

It would fail if other CPU submits IO with ll_rw_block after
wait_on_buffer but before ll_rw_block. ll_rw_block really needs to be
rewritten.

Mikulas

> and go use that in all the appropriate places.
>
> I shall make that change for 2.5, thanks.
>

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:32    [W:0.119 / U:3.564 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site