[lkml]   [2007]   [Feb]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [patch 9/9] mm: fix pagecache write deadlocks
On Sun, Feb 04, 2007 at 03:10:39AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Feb 2007 10:59:58 +0000 (GMT) Anton Altaparmakov <> wrote:
> >
> > How about leaving the existing code with the following minor
> > modifications:
> >
> > Instead of calling filemap_copy_from_user{,_iovec}() do only the atomic
> > bit with pagefaults disabled, i.e. instead of filemap_copy_from_user() we
> > would do (could of course move into a helper function of course):
> >
> > pagefault_disable()
> > kaddr = kmap_atomic(page, KM_USER0);
> > left = __copy_from_user_inatomic_nocache(kaddr + offset, buf, bytes);
> > kunmap_atomic(kaddr, KM_USER0);
> > pagefault_enable()
> >
> > if (unlikely(left)) {
> > /* The user space page got unmapped before we got to copy it. */
> > ...
> > }
> >
> > Thus the 99.999% (or more!) of the time the code would just work as it
> > always has and there is no bug and no speed impact. Only in the very rare
> > and hard to trigger race condition that the user space page after being
> > faulted in got thrown out again before we did the atomic memory copy do we
> > run into the above "..." code path.
> Right. And what I wanted to do here is to zero out the uncopied part of
> the page (if it wasn't uptodate), then run commit_write(), then retry the
> whole thing.
> iirc, we ruled that out because those temporary zeroes are exposed to
> userspace. But the kernel used to do that anyway for a long time (years)
> until someone noticed, and we'll only do it in your 0.0001% case anyway.

Serious? I'd rather leave the deadlock in there than introduce a
very hard to reproduce data corruption bug to fix it. At least the
deadlock is fail-stop and you can tell exactly what happened when
you hit it (assuming you can get a trace).

Then again, we've got lots more similar little correctness corner
cases like this that most people don't notice most of the time. Am
I aiming too high?

> (Actually, perhaps we can prevent it by not marking the page uptodate in
> this case. But that'll cause a read()er to try to bring it uptodate...)

We have to write something back to the filesystem because it may have
allocated blocks at this point.

> > I would propose to call out a different function altogether which could do
> > a multitude of things including drop the lock on the destination page
> > (maintaining a reference on the page!), allocate a temporary page, copy
> > from the user space page into the temporary page, then lock the
> > destination page again, and copy from the temporary page into the
> > destination page.
> The problem with all these things is that as soon as we unlock the page,
> it's visible to read(). And in fact, as soon as we mark it uptodate it's
> visible to mmap, even if it's still locked.
> > This would be slow but who cares given it would only happen incredibly
> > rarely and on majority of machines it would never happen at all.
> >
> > The only potential problem I can see is that the destination page could be
> > truncated whilst it is unlocked. I can see two possible solutions to
> > this:
> truncate's OK: we're holding i_mutex.

Not all truncates hold i_mutex. Neither do all invalidates, for that
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2007-02-04 12:25    [W:0.058 / U:6.528 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site