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: <20140313011629.GA2796@thunk.org>
Date:	Wed, 12 Mar 2014 21:16:29 -0400
From:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc:	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:
> > Folks on linux-fsdevel, any objections if I carry this patch in the
> > ext4 tree?  I don't think it should cause problems for other file
> > systems, since any file system that tries to rely on the implied
> > syncfs() is going to be subject to races, but it might make such a
> > race condition bug much more visible...
> 
> 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.

The issue is that it's forcing a CACHE FLUSH if we don't need to force
a journal commit, since it's possible that data writes could have been
sent to the disk without modifying fs metadata that would require a
commit.  So arguably what we're doing with ext4 is _correct_, where as
with ext3 we would simply not calling blkdev_issue_barrier() in that
situation.

The issue is that if userspace executes a no-op remount, there
shouldn't be a reason to call sync_filesystem() at all.  But I'm also
not so sure that I should be that solicitous of a workload where
someone is calling thousands and thousands of no-op remounts.....

	   	   	     	 	      	    - 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