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  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:   Thu, 12 Apr 2018 14:24:32 -0700
From:   Matthew Wilcox <>
To:     "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <>
Cc:     Andres Freund <>,
        Dave Chinner <>,
        Jeff Layton <>,
        Andreas Dilger <>,,
        Ext4 Developers List <>,
        Linux FS Devel <>,
        "Joshua D. Drake" <>
Subject: Re: fsync() errors is unsafe and risks data loss

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 05:21:44PM -0400, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 01:28:30PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 01:13:22PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > I think a per-file or even per-blockdev/fs error state that'd be
> > > returned by fsync() would be more than sufficient.
> > 
> > Ah; this was my suggestion to Jeff on IRC.  That we add a per-superblock
> > wb_err and then allow syncfs() to return it.  So you'd open an fd on
> > a directory (for example), and call syncfs() which would return -EIO
> > or -ENOSPC if either of those conditions had occurred since you opened
> > the fd.
> When or how would the per-superblock wb_err flag get cleared?

That's not how errseq works, Ted ;-)

> Would all subsequent fsync() calls on that file system now return EIO?
> Or would only all subsequent syncfs() calls return EIO?

Only ones which occur after the last sampling get reported through this
particular file descriptor.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists