Right.. neither of our patches is complete.
  - Yours only addresses the big window while a swapin file is beeing 
opened, not the successive windows on each actual read operation.
  - Mine has a filedescriptor leak due to missing cbdata fail path in 
aioOpen(), and alsy might cause new bugs to pop up in the store 
client due to unexpected cancellation callbacks of the pending read 
operation..  (timing thing.. I cancel things too early, and it is 
safer to do it later when things have settled down like done in your 
patch..)
From what it seems the cbdata barrier really needs to be fixed to have 
this fully fixed. Until then your patch considerably decreases the 
window where the overwrite may occur even if it does not completely 
fix the issue.
More information will follow in a few days.
Regards
Henrik
On Monday 04 November 2002 23.57, Phil Oester wrote:
> I've seen it, and I don't believe it is right.  The meat of it:
>
> -    if (storeAufsSomethingPending(sio)) {
> +    if (FILE_MODE(sio->mode) == O_WRONLY &&
> storeAufsSomethingPending(sio)) {
>
> Why go through the motions of opening/reading/closing when we know
> we don't need to?  It's a waste of cpu/spindle time to retrieve the
> file once we know the client is no longer listening.  Mark it
> closed as soon as possible, and move on to something useful.
>
> Phil Oester
>
> On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 08:56:58AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
> > Have you seen Henriks suggested alteration as well, to prevent a
> > suspected memory overwrite on async writes?
> >
> > Rob
Received on Mon Nov 04 2002 - 17:38:24 MST
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 17:11:09 MST