linux-kernel - Re: forced umount?

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 28 Mar 2007 10:46:20 -0400
From:	Phillip Susi <psusi@....rr.com>
To:	Pekka J Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
CC:	Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...il.com>,
	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: forced umount?

Pekka J Enberg wrote:
> We never want to _abort_ pending updates only pending reads. So, even with 
> revoke(), we need to be careful which is why we do do_fsync() in 
> generic_revoke_file() to make sure pending updates are flushed before we 
> declare the inode revoked.
> 
> But, I haven't looked at forced unmount that much so there may be other 
> issues I am not aware of.

For the purposes of this thread we _do_ want to abort pending updates to
force the system to give up on a broken block device rather than block a 
bunch of tasks in the D state forever.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/