linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH, RFC] fs: only call sync_filesystem() when remounting read-only

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: <20140313073936.GA14663@infradead.org>
Date:	Thu, 13 Mar 2014 00:39:36 -0700
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
	Lucas Nussbaum <lucas.nussbaum@...ia.fr>,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
	"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org Emmanuel Jeanvoine" 
	<emmanuel.jeanvoine@...ia.fr>
Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] fs: only call sync_filesystem() when remounting
 read-only

On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 11:36:35AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> IMO, I think that you should be looking to fix ext4 syncfs issues,
> not changing the VFS behaviour that might cause subtle and unnoticed
> problems for other filesystems. We should not be moving data
> inegrity operations without first auditing of all the filesystem
> remount operations for issues.

Requiring a sync on every remount that doesn't go read-only seems odd
to me, so removing it doesn't sound bad.  However I agree that a proper
audit of filesystems should be done, e.g.:

  patch 1:
  	move calls into the filesystems, explaining why filesystems not
	implementing ->remount_fs should be safe
  patch 2:
  	remove call from ext4, safe because of $FOO
  patch b:
	remove call from $fs, safe because of $BAR

--
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