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: <48D9545E.8040302@redhat.com>
Date:	Tue, 23 Sep 2008 15:41:02 -0500
From:	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
To:	Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@...hat.com>
CC:	"linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: async commit & write barrier code

Ric Wheeler wrote:
> After today's call, I was poking around a bit to try and understand 
> better how the async commit code plays with the write barrier.
> 
> journal_submit_commit_record seems to disable the barriers when async IO 
> is enabled if I read the code correctly. If this is true, how can we 
> provide any promises of on disk data integrity after an fsync()?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Ric

I agree; with async commit, ext4/jbd2 is running with *no* barrier
writes in jbd code. (FWIW, on the fsync front, fsync calls
blkdev_issue_flush in ext4 so that part may actually be ok in the end).

But at a minimum, I think that for data=ordered, there is now *no*
guarantee that the associated file data actually hits disk before the
size updates, is there?

-Eric
--
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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ