"Chen, Kenneth W" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Dmitriy Monakhov wrote on Monday, December 18, 2006 5:23 AM >> This patch is result of discussion started week ago here: >> http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/12/11/66 >> changes from original patch: >> - Update wrong comments about i_mutex locking. >> - Add BUG_ON(!mutex_is_locked(..)) for non blkdev. >> - vmtruncate call only for non blockdev >> LOG: >> If generic_file_direct_write() has fail (ENOSPC condition) inside >> __generic_file_aio_write_nolock() it may have instantiated >> a few blocks outside i_size. And fsck will complain about wrong i_size >> (ext2, ext3 and reiserfs interpret i_size and biggest block difference as >> error), >> after fsck will fix error i_size will be increased to the biggest block, >> but this blocks contain gurbage from previous write attempt, this is not >> information leak, but its silence file data corruption. This issue affect >> fs regardless the values of blocksize or pagesize. >> We need truncate any block beyond i_size after write have failed , do in >> simular >> generic_file_buffered_write() error path. If host is !S_ISBLK i_mutex always >> held inside generic_file_aio_write_nolock() and we may safely call >> vmtruncate(). >> Some fs (XFS at least) may directly call generic_file_direct_write()with >> i_mutex not held. There is no general scenario in this case. This fs have to >> handle generic_file_direct_write() error by its own specific way (place). >> > > > I'm puzzled that if ext2 is able to instantiate some blocks, then why does it > return no space error? Where is the error coming from? generic_file_aio_write_nolock() ->generic_file_direct_write() ->generic_file_direct_IO() ->ext2_direct_IO(WRITE,...) ->blockdev_direct_IO( ....,ext2_get_block,...)
- 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/