linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
To: Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu>, Mike Snitzer <snitzer@gmail.com>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Kirill Korotaev <dev@openvz.org>
Subject: Re: potential regression in ext[34] call to __page_symlink()?
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 04:25:57 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20081029032557.GA17624@wotan.suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20081029024048.GB3766@mit.edu>

On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 10:40:48PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 08:11:48PM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > The gfp_mask that is passed to __page_symlink() is being completely
> > dropped on the floor.  Historically this mask was at least used by
> > ext3 and ext4 to avoid recursing back into the FS from within a
> > journal transaction; Kirill fixed that issue with this commit:
> > 0adb25d2e71ab047423d6fc63d5d184590d0a66f
> > 
> > I'm quite naive when it comes to Nick's relatively new (>= 2.6.24) AOP
> > pagecache_write_{begin,end} code that motivated __page_symlink to
> > change with this commit:
> > afddba49d18f346e5cc2938b6ed7c512db18ca68
> > 
> > Nick's change clearly did away with using the explicitly passed
> > gfp_mask in __page_symlink().
> > So at a minimum it would seem __page_symlink() now has an unused
> > parameter that should be removed.
> > 
> > But a more serious concern would be: have ext[34]_symlink() regressed
> > to being susceptible to the bug that Kirill fixed some time ago?
> 
> Yeah, I think this would be a potential problem for ext3/4.  Looks
> like pagemap_write_begin() should take a gfp_mask argument, and then
> pass it down through to __grab_cache_page(), which should then call
> __page_cache_alloc() instead of _page_cache_alloc().  Then
> __page_symlink() can actually pass in its gfp_mask to
> pagemap_write_begin().
> 
> Nick, do you agree?

I agree it is a problem. It's a bit hard to pass down a gfp_mask
(because the caller would normally expect _all_ operations in the
called code to obey the mask, basically impossible to do for
GFP_NOFS because by definition we're calling into ->write_begin).

I was leaning towards adding a new AOP_FLAG_ there, usable just by
filesystem code, and just to tell any helper code to clear __GFP_FS.
That way callers won't get confused into thinking they can do
GFP_ATOMIC writes from interrupt context or something ;) (which,
trust me, somebody will attempt to do if it looks remotely feasible!)


  reply	other threads:[~2008-10-29  3:25 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-10-29  0:11 potential regression in ext[34] call to __page_symlink()? Mike Snitzer
2008-10-29  2:40 ` Theodore Tso
2008-10-29  3:25   ` Nick Piggin [this message]
2008-10-29 15:40     ` Theodore Tso

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20081029032557.GA17624@wotan.suse.de \
    --to=npiggin@suse.de \
    --cc=dev@openvz.org \
    --cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=snitzer@gmail.com \
    --cc=tytso@mit.edu \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).