Re: Race between vmtruncate and mapped areas?

From: Dave McCracken (dmccr@us.ibm.com)
Date: Wed May 14 2003 - 10:25:26 EST


--On Wednesday, May 14, 2003 08:06:53 -0700 William Lee Irwin III
<wli@holomorphy.com> wrote:

>> Which the application thinks is still part of the file, and will expect
>> its changes to be written back. Granted, if the page fault occurred
>> just after the truncate it'd get SIGBUS, so it's clearly not a robust
>> assumption, but it will result in unexpected behavior. Note that if the
>> application later extends the file to include this page it could result
>> in a corrupted file, since all the pages around it will be written
>> properly.
>
> Well, for this one I'd say the app loses; it was its own failure to
> synchronize truncation vs. access, at least given that the kernel
> doesn't oops.

I think allowing a race condition that can randomly leave corrupted files
is a really bad idea, even if the app is doing something stupid. We know
what the race is. We should be able to prevent it.

Dave

======================================================================
Dave McCracken IBM Linux Base Kernel Team 1-512-838-3059
dmccr@us.ibm.com T/L 678-3059

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 15 2003 - 22:00:52 EST