Re: [PATCH] /proc/kcore: fix seeking

[AmÃrico Wang]

On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 05:23:23PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 12:04:37AM +0800, AmÃrico Wang wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 09:42:29AM -0500, Dave Anderson wrote:
>> >From: Dave Anderson <anderson@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> >
>> >Commit 34aacb2920667d405a8df15968b7f71ba46c8f18
>> >("procfs: Use generic_file_llseek in /proc/kcore")
>> >broke seeking on /proc/kcore.  This changes it back
>> >to use default_llseek in order to restore the original
>> >behavior.
>> >
>> >The problem with generic_file_llseek is that it only
>> >allows seeks up to inode->i_sb->s_maxbytes, which is
>> >2GB-1 on procfs, where the memory file offset values in
>> >the /proc/kcore PT_LOAD segments may exceed or start
>> >beyond that offset value.
>> >
>> 
>> Is the race solved? Using default_llseek() still races
>> with read_kcore() on fpos, AFAIK.
>
>Hmm, how does it race there?
>
>read_kcore() manipulates fpos, which can't be changed behind
>us inside the read callback as it's a snapshot. Also read_kcore()
>can change the value of fpos, which is writed back to file->fpos
>from sys_read().
>
>So the last resulting race here the natural one between
>seeking and reading, which is up to the user to take care
>of.

Hmm, I just read the changelog of commit
34aacb2920667d405a8df15968b7f71ba46c8f18, which claims to fix
the race. So anything changed in vfs layer after that?

Thanks.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/