linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 4/4] ext4: Wait for proper transaction commit on fsync

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:	Tue, 8 Dec 2009 22:51:20 -0500
From:	tytso@....edu
To:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] ext4: Wait for proper transaction commit on fsync

On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 11:43:31AM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > Why do we need an atomic_t here at all?  It's not clear it's
> > necessary.  What specific race are you worried about?
>   Well, i_[data]sync_tid are set and read from several places which aren't
> currently synchronized against each other and I din't want to introduce any
> synchronization. So atomic_t seemed like a clean way of making clear that
> loads / stores from those fields are atomic, regardless of architecture,
> memory alignment or whatever insanity that might make us see just half
> overwritten field.  On all archs where this means just plain stores / loads
> (such as x86), there's no performance hit since the operations are
> implemented as such.

Sorry for not responding to this one sooner, but see this URL:

http://digitalvampire.org/blog/index.php/2007/05/13/atomic-cargo-cults/

							- Ted


--
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