Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 1 Aug 2005 01:46:01 +0300
From:      Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@freebsd.org>
To:        Garrett Wollman <wollman@csail.mit.edu>
Cc:        freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: mmap bug?
Message-ID:  <20050731224601.GA2024@gothmog.gr>
In-Reply-To: <17133.21281.703540.383144@khavrinen.csail.mit.edu>
References:  <20050731141801.GA49300@gothmog.gr> <84dead7205073108564f71f1ab@mail.gmail.com> <20050731160853.GC49839@gothmog.gr> <84dead720507311115290f0140@mail.gmail.com> <20050731201858.GC1052@gothmog.gr> <17133.21281.703540.383144@khavrinen.csail.mit.edu>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2005-07-31 18:39, Garrett Wollman <wollman@csail.mit.edu> wrote:
><<On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 23:18:58 +0300, Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@FreeBSD.ORG> said:
>> The bug seems to be elsewhere, namely to the fact that the filesystem
>> code never realizes the file has changed size after I use mmap() to map
>> a region beyond its current size and write past its current end.
>
> You should not expect it to do that.  If you want to extend a file,
> use ftruncate() before mapping it.  Anything written past the end of a
> file should be discarded on last close.

I see.  Thank you for the explanation :)

It seems strange though that when the test program runs and finishes,
munmapping the region and closing the file the data is still visible.
Perhaps the fact that I used MAP_SHARED plays a role in that?

Is the fact that the data written to the mapped region visible after the
close (by mapping the same region) expected too?

- Giorgos




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050731224601.GA2024>