linux-ext4 - Re: [RFC] [PATCH] vfs: Call filesystem callback when backing device caches should be flushed

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:	Thu, 22 Jan 2009 10:25:24 +1100
From:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To:	Jamie Lokier <jamie@...reable.org>
Cc:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Theodore Tso <tytso@....EDU>
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] vfs: Call filesystem callback when backing
	device caches should be flushed

On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 09:47:48PM +0000, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Tue 20-01-09 15:16:48, Joel Becker wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 05:05:27PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > >   we noted in our testing that ext2 (and it seems some other filesystems as
> > > > well) don't flush disk's write caches on cases like fsync() or changing
> > > > DIRSYNC directory. This is my attempt to solve the problem in a generic way
> > > > by calling a filesystem callback from VFS at appropriate place as Andrew
> > > > suggested. For ext2 what I did is enough (it just then fills in
> > > > block_flush_device() as .flush_device callback) and I think it could be
> > > > fine for other filesystems as well.
> > > 
> > > 	The only question I have is why this would be optional.  It
> > > would seem that this would be the preferred default behavior for all
> > > block filesystems.  We have the backing_dev_info and a way to override
> > > the default if a filesystem needs something special.
> >
> >   The reason why I've decided for NOP to be the default is that
> > filesystems doing proper journalling with barriers should not need
> > this (as the barrier in the transaction commit already does the job
> > for them).
> 
> No, that doesn't work.
> 
> fsync() doesn't always cause a transaction.  If there's no inode
> change, there may not be a transaction.  Writing does not always dirty
> mtime, if it's within mtime granularity.

If the inode is dirty and fsync does nothing, then that filesystem
is *broken*. If writing to the inode doesn't dirty it, then the
filesystem is broken. Fix the broken filesystem.

> For efficient fdatasync() you _never_ want a transaction if possible,
> because it forces the disk head to seek between alternating regions of
> the disk, two seeks per fsync().

If there is dirty metadata that is need to be logged or flushed,
then fdatasync() needs to do something. If it doesn't do it
correctly, then that *filesystem is broken*. Fix the broken
filesystem.

> So you can't rely on journalling transactions to flush.

The VFS doesn't even know about transactions....

> >   Finally, I prefer maintainers of the filesystems themselves to
> >   decide whether their filesystem needs flushing and thus
> >   knowingly impose this performance penalty on them...
> 
> I say it should flush be default unless a filesystem hooks an
> alternative strategy.  Certainly, it's silly to have the same code
> duplicated in nearly every filesystem

So write a *generic helper* for those filesystems that do the same
thing and hook it to their ->fsync method. Don't hard code it in the
VFS so other filesystem dev's have to come along afterwards and turn
it off.

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com
--
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