linux-kernel - Re: adding proper O_SYNC/O_DSYNC, was Re: 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Fri, 28 Aug 2009 18:39:54 -0400
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:	Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no>
Cc:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>,
	Jamie Lokier <jamie@...reable.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: adding proper O_SYNC/O_DSYNC, was Re: O_DIRECT and barriers

On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 05:43:05PM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> If you are going to automatically set O_DSYNC in open(), then
> fcntl(F_SETFL) might get a bit nasty.
> 
> Imagine using it after the open in order to clear the O_ISYNC flag;
> you'll still be left with the O_DSYNC (which you never set in the first
> place). That would be confusing...

Indeed, that's a killer argument for the first variant.  We just need
to make it extremly clear (manpage _and_ comments) that only O_SYNC is
an exposed user interface and that O_WHATEVER_SYNC is an implementation
detail.
--
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/