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]

Message-ID: <4D1B6217.6020300@ontolinux.com>
Date:	Wed, 29 Dec 2010 17:30:15 +0100
From:	Christian Stroetmann <stroetmann@...olinux.com>
To:	Olaf van der Spek <olafvdspek@...il.com>
CC:	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@...hat.com>,
	Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>
Subject: Re: Atomic file data replace API

On the 29.12.2010 16:35, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> 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.

Maybe you have not understood the hints: It doesn't matter anymore about 
what you are talking unless you present 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?

read the paragraph as a whole

>> 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?

read the begining of the paragraph

>>> 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?

Do you have any code that improves the situation to discuss here?

>> 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

Christian Stroetmann
--
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