Re: potential regression in ext[34] call to __page_symlink()?

[Theodore Tso]

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?

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