linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 4/4] ext4: Wait for proper transaction commit on fsync

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 4 Nov 2009 16:53:44 +0100
From:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, tytso@....edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] ext4: Wait for proper transaction commit on fsync

On Wed 04-11-09 15:57:22, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> writes:
> >  	ext4_io_end_t *cur_aio_dio;
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Transactions that contain inode's metadata needed to complete
> > +	 * fsync and fdatasync, respectively.
> > +	 */
> > +	atomic_t i_sync_tid;
> > +	atomic_t i_datasync_tid;
> 
> This might be a stupid question, but the atomic implies you don't hold
> any kind of reference to the transaction. So what prevents these IDs
> from wrapping while in there? Given it would be probably take a long
> time today, but might be not fully future proof to very fast future IO
> devices.
  Yes, IDs can wrap. But journalling layer actually compares them so that
wrapping does not matter unless you manage to do 2^31 transactions
inbetween. So we are still a few orders of magnitude safe with current hw.

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html