linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 1/2] ext4/jbd2: fix io-barrier logic in case of external journal

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: <20100322012000.GD11560@thunk.org>
Date:	Sun, 21 Mar 2010 21:20:00 -0400
From:	tytso@....edu
To:	Dmitry Monakhov <dmonakhov@...nvz.org>
Cc:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] ext4/jbd2: fix io-barrier logic in case of
 external journal

On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 08:26:49PM +0300, Dmitry Monakhov wrote:
>  start_journal_io:
> +			if (bufs)
> +				commit_transaction->t_flushed_data_blocks = 1;
> +

I'm not convinced this is right.

>From your test case, the problem isn't because we have journaled
metadata blocks (which is what bufs) counts, but because fsync()
depends on data blocks also getting flushed out to disks.

However, if we aren't closing the transaction because of fsync(), I
don't think we need to do a barrier in the case of an external
journal.  So instead of effectively unconditionally setting
t_flushed_data_blocks (since bufs is nearly always going to be
non-zero), I think the better fix is to test to see if the journal
device != to the fs data device in fsync(), and if so, start the
barrier operation there.

Do you agree?

Best regards,

						- 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