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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Mon, 24 Feb 2020 19:31:06 +0800
From:   "zhangyi (F)" <yi.zhang@...wei.com>
To:     Eryu Guan <guaneryu@...il.com>
CC:     <fstests@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4/021: make sure the fdatasync subprocess exits

Hi,

On 2020/2/23 20:34, Eryu Guan wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 10:20:01AM +0800, zhangyi (F) wrote:
>> Now we just kill fdatasync_work process and wait nothing after the
>> test, so a busy unmount failure may appear if the fdatasync syscall
>> doesn't return in time.
>>
>>   umount: /tmp/scratch: target is busy.
>>   mount: /tmp/scratch: /dev/sdb already mounted on /tmp/scratch.
>>   !!! failed to remount /dev/sdb on /tmp/scratch
>>
>> This patch kill and wait the xfs_io fdatasync subprocess to make sure
>> _check_scratch_fs success.
> 
> Yeah, that's a problem.
> 
> I think you could add another "trap" in fdatasync_work, as what
> btrfs/036 does:
> 
> 	trap "wait; exit" SIGTERM
> 
> So xfs_io will be waited by fdatasync_work before exiting.
> 

Thanks for your suggestion, I will do that.

Thanks,
Yi.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists