Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > This reintroduces the fault vs truncate race window, which must be fixed. Hmmm... perhaps. I remember that cropped up in NFS, but I'm doing things a bit differently to NFS. Remind me again how that worked please. > Also, it is adding a fair bit of complexity in an area where we should > instead be reducing it. I think your filesystem should not be doing > writeback caching of dirty data in the cases where it is so problematic > (or at least, disallow mmap and read on the dirty data until it has been > written back or failed). Eh? It's a stateless network filesystem. There's a gap between writing to a file (perhaps though an mmap) and the pagecache pages being written back in which someone may change the security on a file and block the writeback. There's nothing I can do to prevent it, so I have to instead deal with the consequences should they arise. See the description of patch 25 for examples. So you say I shouldn't do any writeback caching at all? > But otherwise I guess if you really want to discard the dirty data after > a failed writeback attempt, what's wrong with just invalidate_inode_pages2? Erm... Because it deadlocks? David -- This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list. If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.
