linux-ext4 - Re: [Cluster-devel] fallocate vs O

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Wed, 16 Nov 2011 07:45:50 -0500
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc:	Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@...hat.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
	mfasheh@...e.com, jlbec@...lplan.org, cluster-devel@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [Cluster-devel] fallocate vs O_(D)SYNC

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:54:13AM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
>   Yeah, only that nobody calls that fsync() automatically if the fd is
> O_SYNC if I'm right. But maybe calling fdatasync() on the range which was
> fallocated from sys_fallocate() if the fd is O_SYNC would do the trick for
> most filesystems? That would match how we treat O_SYNC for other operations
> as well. I'm just not sure whether XFS wouldn't take unnecessarily big hit
> with this.

This would work fine with XFS and be equivalent to what it does for
O_DSYNC now.  But I'd rather see every filesystem do the right thing
and make sure the update actually is on disk when doing O_(D)SYNC
operations.

--
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