Re: Race between vmtruncate and mapped areas?

[Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de>]

On Sat, May 17, 2003 at 11:19:39AM -0700, Paul McKenney wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 02:20:00AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > and it's still racy
> > >
> > > damn, and it just booted ;)
> > >
> > > I'm just a little bit concerned over the ever-expanding inode.  Do you
> > > think the dual sequence numbers can be replaced by a single generation
> > > counter?
> >
> > yes, I wrote it as a single counter first, but was unreadable and it had
> > more branches, so I added the other sequence number to make it cleaner.
> > I don't mind another 4 bytes, that cacheline should be hot anyways.
> >
> > > I do think that we should push the revalidate operation over into the
> vm_ops.
> > > That'll require an extra arg to ->nopage, but it has a spare one anyway
> (!).
> >
> > not sure why you need a callback, the lowlevel if needed can serialize
> > using the same locking in the address space that vmtruncate uses. I
> > would wait a real case need before adding a callback.
> 
> FYI, we verified that the revalidate callback could also do the same
> job that the proposed nopagedone callback does -- permitting filesystems
> that provide their on vm_operations_struct to avoid the race between
> page faults and invalidating a page from a mapped file.

don't you need two callbacks to avoid the race? (really I mean, to call
two times a callback, the callback can be also the same)

Andrea