linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/17] Make O_SYNC handling use standard syncing path (Version 2)

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:	Sat, 22 Aug 2009 17:27:11 +0100
From:	Jamie Lokier <jamie@...reable.org>
To:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, hch@....de,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/17] Make O_SYNC handling use standard syncing path (Version 2)

Jan Kara wrote:
> The patch set unifines O_SYNC handling with standard fsync() path.  After this,
> we have just one place forcing a single file to disk so filesystems like ext3 /
> ext4 don't have to force a transaction commit in ext?_file_write for O_SYNC
> files / IS_SYNC inodes.  The code is also cleaner this way (actually about 150
> lines shorter), we don't sync the inode several times as it happened previously
> etc.

Afaik, O_SYNC requires just the written data to be committed to disk,
but fsync() requires all dirty data for the file (including written by
other processes / descriptors) to be committed to disk.

So doing the equivalent of fsync() after write might be the wrong
thing to do.

-- Jamie
--
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/