Re: [PATCH] AFS: Implement shared-writable mmap [try #2]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



David Howells wrote:
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


In general (modulo bugs and crazy filesystems), you're not allowed to have
!uptodate pages mapped into user addresses because that implies the user
would be allowed to see garbage.


Ths situation I have to deal with is a tricky one.  Consider:

 (1) User A modifies a page with his key.  This change gets made in the
     pagecache, but is not written back immediately.

 (2) User B then wants to modify the same page, but with a different key.
     This means that afs_prepare_write() has to flush A's writes back to the
     server before B is permitted to write.

 (3) The flush fails because A is no longer permitted to write to that file.
     This means that the change in the page cache is now stale.  We can't just
     write it back as B because B didn't make the change.

What I've made afs_prepare_write() do in this situation is to nuke A's entire
write.  We can't write any of it back.  I can't call invalidate_inode_pages()
or similar because that might incorrectly kill one of B's writes (or someone
else's writes); besides, the on-server file hasn't changed.

Why would that kill anyone's writes?


To nuke A's write, each page that makes up that write is marked non-uptodate
and then reloaded.  Whilst I might wish to call invalidate_inode_pages_range(),
I can't as it can/would deadlock if called from prepare_write() in two
different ways.

Which ways? Are you talking about prepare_write being called from page_mkwrite,
or anywhere?

More generally it sounds like a nasty thing to have a writeback cache if it can
become incoherent (due to dirty pages that subsequently cannot be written
back) without notification. Have you tried doing a write-through one?

You may be clearing PG_uptodate, but isn't there still an underlying problem
that you can have mappings to the page at that point? If that isn't a problem
for you, then I don't know why you would have to clear PG_uptodate at all.


Minor issue: you can just check for `if (!page->mapping)` for truncation,
which is the usual signal to tell the reader you're checking for truncate.


That's inconsistent with other core code, truncate_complete_page() for
example.

Your filesystem internally moves pages between mappings like tmpfs?


You misunderstand me.  truncate_complete_page() uses this:

	if (page->mapping != mapping)

not this:

	if (!page->mapping)

I think that both cases should work in page_mkwrite().  But !page->mapping does
not appear to be the "usual signal" from what I've seen.

truncate_complete_page does that because it has to handle the case where
the mapping changes from one thing to something else that is non-NULL,
which tmpfs does.

This is not the case for most code in fs.

--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]
  Powered by Linux