From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Fri, 15 Aug 2008 15:39:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.168.28]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id m7FMdTAA024607 for ; Fri, 15 Aug 2008 15:39:30 -0700 Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 18:40:47 -0400 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [REVIEW] Prevent direct I/O from mapping extents beyond eof Message-ID: <20080815224047.GA15914@infradead.org> References: <48A50152.8020104@sgi.com> <20080815220958.GB13770@infradead.org> <20080815152756.61aab5a7.akpm@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080815152756.61aab5a7.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Andrew Morton Cc: Christoph Hellwig , lachlan@sgi.com, xfs-dev@sgi.com, xfs@oss.sgi.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 03:27:56PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > Oh gee, I forget, and so many people have done drivebys on that code... > > We _could_ add additional i_size checking into direct-io.c but bear in > mind that it would be best-effort unreliable stuff. The code will > still be tripped up by concurrent extends and concurrent truncates. > > So we'll still end up calling the fs for blocks outside i_size, only > less commonly. I think. Yeah, guess we should put in this patch then.