linux-ext4 - Re: [Bug 421482] Firefox 3 uses fsync excessively

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]

Message-Id: <20080526114955.82c062f2.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Mon, 26 May 2008 11:49:55 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....EDU>
Cc:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Bug 421482] Firefox 3 uses fsync excessively

On Mon, 26 May 2008 06:07:51 -0400 Theodore Tso <tytso@....EDU> wrote:

> On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 12:05:06AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > It's purportedly showing that fdatasync() on ext3 is syncing the whole
> > world in fsync()-fashion even with an application which does not grow
> > the file size.
> > 
> > But fdatasync() shouldn't do that.  Even if the inode is dirty from
> > atime or mtime updates, that shouldn't cause fdatasync() to run an
> > ext3 commit?
> 
> Well, ideally it shouldn't, although POSIX allows fdatasync() to be
> implemented in terms of fsync().  It is at the moment.  :-/

Well..

> The problem is we don't currently have a way of distinguishing between
> a "smudged" inode (only the mtime/atime has changed) and a "dirty"
> inode (even if the number of blocks hasn't changed, if i_size has
> changed, or i_mode, or anything else, including extended attributes
> inline in the inode).

Who do you mena by "we"?  ext3 or the kernel as a whole?

>  We're not tracking that difference.  If we only
> allow mtime/atime changes through setattr (see Cristoph's patches),
> and don't set the VFS dirty bit, but our own "smudged" bit, we could
> do it --- but at the moment, we're not.

But the VFS _does_ track these things, via the eternally
incomprehensible I_DIRTY_SYNC and I_DIRTY_DATASYNC.

We have:

	if (datasync && !(inode->i_state & I_DIRTY_DATASYNC))
		goto out;

which _should_ cause the fs to skip the commit during fdatasync() if
only mtime and ctime have changed?

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html