The way how fuse calls truncate_pagecache() from fuse_change_attributes()
is completely wrong. Because, w/o i_mutex held, we never sure whether
'oldsize' and 'attr->size' are valid by the time of execution of
truncate_pagecache(inode, oldsize, attr->size). In fact, as soon as we
released fc->lock
The way how fuse calls truncate_pagecache() from fuse_change_attributes()
is completely wrong. Because, w/o i_mutex held, we never sure whether
'oldsize' and 'attr-size' are valid by the time of execution of
truncate_pagecache(inode, oldsize, attr-size). In fact, as soon as we
released fc-lock in
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Maxim Patlasov wrote:
> The patch looks fine, but it solves only one side of the problem (exactly
> what you formulated above). Another side is opposite: truncating page cache
> too late, when the state of inode changed significantly. The beginning may
> be as in
Hi,
08/29/2013 01:25 PM, Miklos Szeredi пишет:
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 04:21:46PM +0400, Maxim Patlasov wrote:
The way how fuse calls truncate_pagecache() from fuse_change_attributes()
is completely wrong. Because, w/o i_mutex held, we never sure whether
'oldsize' and 'attr->size' are valid by
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 04:21:46PM +0400, Maxim Patlasov wrote:
> The way how fuse calls truncate_pagecache() from fuse_change_attributes()
> is completely wrong. Because, w/o i_mutex held, we never sure whether
> 'oldsize' and 'attr->size' are valid by the time of execution of
>
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 04:21:46PM +0400, Maxim Patlasov wrote:
The way how fuse calls truncate_pagecache() from fuse_change_attributes()
is completely wrong. Because, w/o i_mutex held, we never sure whether
'oldsize' and 'attr-size' are valid by the time of execution of
Hi,
08/29/2013 01:25 PM, Miklos Szeredi пишет:
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 04:21:46PM +0400, Maxim Patlasov wrote:
The way how fuse calls truncate_pagecache() from fuse_change_attributes()
is completely wrong. Because, w/o i_mutex held, we never sure whether
'oldsize' and 'attr-size' are valid by
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Maxim Patlasov mpatla...@parallels.com wrote:
The patch looks fine, but it solves only one side of the problem (exactly
what you formulated above). Another side is opposite: truncating page cache
too late, when the state of inode changed significantly. The
The way how fuse calls truncate_pagecache() from fuse_change_attributes()
is completely wrong. Because, w/o i_mutex held, we never sure whether
'oldsize' and 'attr->size' are valid by the time of execution of
truncate_pagecache(inode, oldsize, attr->size). In fact, as soon as we
released fc->lock
The way how fuse calls truncate_pagecache() from fuse_change_attributes()
is completely wrong. Because, w/o i_mutex held, we never sure whether
'oldsize' and 'attr-size' are valid by the time of execution of
truncate_pagecache(inode, oldsize, attr-size). In fact, as soon as we
released fc-lock in
10 matches
Mail list logo
