From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1 of 2] block_page_mkwrite() Implementation V2 From: David Woodhouse In-Reply-To: <18993.1179310769@redhat.com> References: <20070318233008.GA32597093@melbourne.sgi.com> <18993.1179310769@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 20:09:19 +0800 Message-Id: <1179317360.2859.225.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: David Howells Cc: David Chinner , lkml , linux-mm , linux-fsdevel List-ID: On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 11:19 +0100, David Howells wrote: > The start and end points passed to block_prepare_write() delimit the region of > the page that is going to be modified. This means that prepare_write() > doesn't need to fill it in if the page is not up to date. Really? Is it _really_ going to be modified? Even if the pointer userspace gave to write() is bogus, and is going to fault half-way through the copy_from_user()? -- dwmw2 -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org