On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 07:11:10AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 03:57:21AM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 09, 2017 at 09:07:56PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote: > > > > > With this in place, I'm still seeing -EBUSY from invalidate_inode_pages2_range > > > which doesn't end well... > > > > Different issue, and I'm not sure why that WARN_ON() is there in the > > first place. Note that in a similar situation generic_file_direct_write() > > simply buggers off and lets the caller do buffered write... > > XFS does not fall back to buffered IO when direct IO fails. A > direct IO failure is indicative of a problem that needs to be fixed, > not use a "let's hope we can hide this" fallback path. Especially in > this case - EBUSY usually comes from the app is doing something we > /know/ is dangerous and it's occurrence to completely timing > dependent - if the timing is slightly different, we miss detection > and that can lead to silent data corruption. In this case app is a fuzzer, which is bloody well supposed to poke into all kinds of odd usage patterns, though... -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
