linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] vfs: Fix sys_sync() and 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 23 Apr 2009 09:09:46 -0400
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vfs: Fix sys_sync() and fsync_super() reliability

On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 03:07:24PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > Another thing I want to do in this area is sort out the meaning of
> > write_super.  I'd really prefer to have every filesystem implement
> > ->sync_fs for actual data-integerity syncs, and only leave ->write_super
> > for the periodic writeouts, as the current implementation is extrenly
> > confusing and causes a lot of trouble for filesystems doing their own
> > periodic sb writeback.
>   Yes, that would be nice but I guess it's a partly a separate issue
> (and has to touch a lot of filesystems). I'll keep write_supers() call in
> the next version of the patch so that this split isn't made harded by it.

Yeah, separate issue.  We need to do this sync massaging in a couple of
small steps..

--
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/