linux-kernel - Re: [patch 8/8] fs: add i_op->sync

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, 7 Jan 2011 08:10:16 -0500
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>
Cc:	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 8/8] fs: add i_op->sync_inode

On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 02:29:34AM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Btw, there's an easy way how we could get this right, in fact
> the write_inode in XFS is already trying to do it, it's just the
> caller not copying with it:
> 
>  - if we can't get locks for a non-blocking ->write_inode we return
>    EAGAIN, and the callers sets the dirty bits again.

I just tried to implement this and noticed we're actually doing this
inside XFS - if we get our EAGAIN error from the lower level code
in ->write_inode we do a manual mark_inode_dirty_sync().  So as far
as XFS is concerned ->write_inode always pushes data into a state
where ->sync_fs writes it out, or if it was called with WB_SYNC_NONE
and couldn't get the locks redirties the inode, and thus is not affected
by the issue you mentioned.  I think this is also a good model for
other filesystems to follow.
--
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/