On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 10:23:53AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 01:11:38PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 05:21:42PM -0700, ira.we...@intel.com wrote: > > > From: Ira Weiny <ira.we...@intel.com> > > >
... > > > -out_unlock: > > > - xfs_iunlock(ip, XFS_MMAPLOCK_EXCL | XFS_IOLOCK_EXCL); > > > - return error; > > > + if ((mp->m_flags & XFS_MOUNT_DAX_ALWAYS) || > > > + (mp->m_flags & XFS_MOUNT_DAX_NEVER)) > > > + return; > > > > > > + if (((fa->fsx_xflags & FS_XFLAG_DAX) && > > > + !(ip->i_d.di_flags2 & XFS_DIFLAG2_DAX)) || > > > + (!(fa->fsx_xflags & FS_XFLAG_DAX) && > > > + (ip->i_d.di_flags2 & XFS_DIFLAG2_DAX))) > > > + d_mark_dontcache(inode); > > Now that I think about this further, are we /really/ sure that we want > to let unprivileged userspace cause inode evictions? This code only applies to files they have access to. And it does not directly cause an eviction. It only hints that those inodes (for which they have access to) will not be cached thus causing them to be reloaded sooner than they might otherwise be. So I think we are fine here. Ira > > --D >
