linux-ext4 - Re: Atomic file data replace API

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:	Wed, 29 Dec 2010 16:35:12 +0100
From:	Olaf van der Spek <olafvdspek@...il.com>
To:	Christian Stroetmann <stroetmann@...olinux.com>
Cc:	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@...hat.com>,
	Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>
Subject: Re: Atomic file data replace API

On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 4:30 PM, Christian Stroetmann
<stroetmann@...olinux.com> wrote:
> On the 29.12.2010 13:42, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
>>>> Not really, unfortunately. Haven't seen a single link to code that
>>>> shows how to do it properly.
>
> No, not this way. You were and still are asked for delivering the code.
> Don't pervert the threat of the discussion.

I'm talking about the code for temp file, fsync, rename. Not about
O_ATOMIC code.

>> Each app makes it's own decision about what API to use. Supporting
>> atomic stuff doesn't change the behaviour of existing apps.
>
> Wrong, we are talking here in the first place about general atomic FS
> operations. And to guarantee atomicity you have to change general FS
> functions in such a way that in the end all other applications are affected,

Why's that?

> or otherwise you have to implement an own (larger part of an) FS.
> At this point there is no discussion anymore without code from you, because
> this subject is as well discussed to the maximum in information
> processing/informatics/computer science.

This subject? Exactly what subject?

>> Maybe I should ask devs of some large apps on their take of this issue.
>
> Nonsense, because they are already using:
> a) the functions available by an FS,

Of course. Does that mean the situation can't be improved for them?

> b) the functions available by a DBMS, or
> c) a propritary special solution based on the available functions of the OS
> and additional functionality that they develope and maintain themselves
> for their comparable use cases since decades due to the cost vs. benefit
> ratio.

Olaf
--
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