On Mon, 19 Nov 2007, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > 2.6.22-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let us > know. > > ------------------ > From: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > patch e423003028183df54f039dfda8b58c49e78c89d7 in mainline. > > This is a writeback-internal marker but we're propagating it all the way back > to userspace!. > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
It's fine by me that this should go into 2.6.22-stable, but then please also put in this related patch from 2.6.23-stable: it's arguable whether either are strictly needed (they were originally provoked by unionfs, in Ubuntu but not mainline), but more helpful to include than exclude them. Thanks, Hugh Subject: [patch 12/13] fix tmpfs BUG and AOP_WRITEPAGE_ACTIVATE -stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let us know. ------------------ From: Hugh Dickins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> patch 487e9bf25cbae11b131d6a14bdbb3a6a77380837 in mainline. It's possible to provoke unionfs (not yet in mainline, though in mm and some distros) to hit shmem_writepage's BUG_ON(page_mapped(page)). I expect it's possible to provoke the 2.6.23 ecryptfs in the same way (but the 2.6.24 ecryptfs no longer calls lower level's ->writepage). This came to light with the recent find that AOP_WRITEPAGE_ACTIVATE could leak from tmpfs via write_cache_pages and unionfs to userspace. There's already a fix (e423003028183df54f039dfda8b58c49e78c89d7 - writeback: don't propagate AOP_WRITEPAGE_ACTIVATE) in the tree for that, and it's okay so far as it goes; but insufficient because it doesn't address the underlying issue, that shmem_writepage expects to be called only by vmscan (relying on backing_dev_info capabilities to prevent the normal writeback path from ever approaching it). That's an increasingly fragile assumption, and ramdisk_writepage (the other source of AOP_WRITEPAGE_ACTIVATEs) is already careful to check wbc->for_reclaim before returning it. Make the same check in shmem_writepage, thereby sidestepping the page_mapped BUG also. Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Erez Zadok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reviewed-by: Pekka Enberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- mm/shmem.c | 15 +++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+) --- a/mm/shmem.c +++ b/mm/shmem.c @@ -916,6 +916,21 @@ static int shmem_writepage(struct page * struct inode *inode; BUG_ON(!PageLocked(page)); + /* + * shmem_backing_dev_info's capabilities prevent regular writeback or + * sync from ever calling shmem_writepage; but a stacking filesystem + * may use the ->writepage of its underlying filesystem, in which case + * we want to do nothing when that underlying filesystem is tmpfs + * (writing out to swap is useful as a response to memory pressure, but + * of no use to stabilize the data) - just redirty the page, unlock it + * and claim success in this case. AOP_WRITEPAGE_ACTIVATE, and the + * page_mapped check below, must be avoided unless we're in reclaim. + */ + if (!wbc->for_reclaim) { + set_page_dirty(page); + unlock_page(page); + return 0; + } BUG_ON(page_mapped(page)); mapping = page->mapping; - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/