Implement individual lock for SEEK_END for ext4 which directly calls
generic_file_llseek_size().
Signed-off-by: Eiichi Tsukata
---
fs/ext4/file.c | 10 ++
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
diff --git a/fs/ext4/file.c b/fs/ext4/file.c
index 69d65d49837b..6479f3066043 100644
--- a/fs/ext4
Implement individual lock for SEEK_END for overlayfs which directly calls
generic_file_llseek_size().
Signed-off-by: Eiichi Tsukata
---
fs/overlayfs/file.c | 23 ---
1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/overlayfs/file.c b/fs/overlayfs/file.c
0fd27e90 ("vfs: do (nearly) lockless generic_file_llseek")
Signed-off-by: Eiichi Tsukata
---
fs/btrfs/file.c| 2 +-
fs/fuse/file.c | 5 +++--
fs/gfs2/file.c | 3 ++-
fs/read_write.c| 37 ++---
include/linux/fs.h | 2 ++
5 files changed, 42
ents inode lock for SEEK_END in generic_file_llseek()
Patch 2 to 4: implement inode lock for SEEK_END in each file systems
Eiichi Tsukata (4):
vfs: fix race between llseek SEEK_END and write
ext4: fix race between llseek SEEK_END and write
f2fs: fix race between llseek SEEK_END and write
ove
This patch itself seems to be just a cleanup but with the
commit b25bd1d9fd87 ("vfs: fix race between llseek SEEK_END and write")
it fixes race.
Signed-off-by: Eiichi Tsukata
---
fs/f2fs/file.c | 6 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/f2fs/file.c
2018年11月21日(水) 13:54 Al Viro :
>
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:43:56AM +0900, Eiichi Tsukata wrote:
> > Some file systems (including ext4, xfs, ramfs ...) have the following
> > problem as I've described in the commit message of the 1/4 patch.
> >
> > The co
2018年11月21日(水) 18:23 Christoph Hellwig :
>
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:43:59AM +0900, Eiichi Tsukata wrote:
> > This patch itself seems to be just a cleanup but with the
> > commit b25bd1d9fd87 ("vfs: fix race between llseek SEEK_END and write")
> > it fixes r
2018年11月22日(木) 16:06 Al Viro :
>
> Can you show me where does POSIX/SuS/whatever it's called these days promise
> that kind of atomicity?
No. I couldn't found it.
That's why I previously posted RFC Patch:
https://marc.info/?t=15423727791&r=1&w=2
I wasn't sure this is a bug in the kernel or not