On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 09:55:27 +0200
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri 23-03-12 15:45:02, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Mon, 5 Mar 2012 17:00:59 +0100
> > Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > --- a/mm/filemap.c
> > > +++ b/mm/filemap.c
> > > @@ -1759,8 +1759,28 @@ page_not_uptodate:
> > > }
> > > EXPORT_SYMBOL(filemap_fault);
> > >
> > > +int filemap_page_mkwrite(struct vm_area_struct *vma, struct vm_fault *vmf)
> > > +{
> > > + struct page *page = vmf->page;
> > > + struct inode *inode = vma->vm_file->f_path.dentry->d_inode;
> > > + int ret = VM_FAULT_LOCKED;
> > > +
> > > + file_update_time(vma->vm_file);
> > > + lock_page(page);
> > > + if ((page->mapping != inode->i_mapping) ||
> > > + (page_offset(page) > i_size_read(inode))) {
> >
> > Would benefit from a comment explaining how the page can come to be
> > outside i_size, and why we fail in that case.
This?
> > I don't think i_mutex is held here, so this test is rather meaningless
> > and racy anyway?
> i_size test is racy if that's what you mean by "this test". Just I did
> the test this way because it's like this in other places and I figured
> truncate_pagecache() can take relatively long time so the test has some
> effect. But if you think it's not worth it, I can remove it.
It bugs me when we copy-n-paste code without remembering why we had it
there in the first place :( iirc, mmapped pages outside i_size can and
do happen in some race situations, and are benign. But it's several
years since I thought about it and all the details have evaporated and
it would take a lot of work to reinstantiate it all. argh.
Also, it's off-by-one, isn't it? Should be page_offset(page) >= i_size?
--
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
