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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 14:39:15 +0100 From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@...hat.com>, 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 16-11-11 07:45:50, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > 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. OK, I don't really have a strong opinion here. Are you afraid that just calling fsync() need not be enough to push all updates fallocate did to disk? 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists