linux-ext4 - Re: [RFCv2 2/8] libfs: Add __generic_file_fsync

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: <ZDaZR+zHcpUyNOND@infradead.org>
Date:   Wed, 12 Apr 2023 04:43:03 -0700
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        "Ritesh Harjani (IBM)" <ritesh.list@...il.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
        Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        "Darrick J . Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
        Ojaswin Mujoo <ojaswin@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFCv2 2/8] libfs: Add __generic_file_fsync_nolock implementation

On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 01:33:17PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 10:27:10PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 10:51:50AM +0530, Ritesh Harjani (IBM) wrote:
> > > +/**
> > > + * __generic_file_fsync_nolock - generic fsync implementation for simple
> > > + * filesystems with no inode lock
> > 
> > No reallz need for the __ prefix in the name.
> 
> It kind of makes sense though.
> 
> generic_file_fsync does the flush
> __generic_file_fsync doesn't do the flush
> __generic_file_fsync_nolock doesn't do the flush and doesn't lock/unlock

Indeed.  Part of it is that the naming is a bit horrible.
Maybe it should move to buffer.c and be called generic_buffer_fsync,
or generic_block_fsync which still wouldn't be perfect but match the
buffer.c naming scheme.

> 
> > > +extern int __generic_file_fsync_nolock(struct file *, loff_t, loff_t, int);
> > 
> > No need for the extern.  And at least I personally prefer to spell out
> > the parameter names to make the prototype much more readable.
> 
> Agreed, although I make an exception for the 'struct file *'.  Naming that
> parameter adds no value, but a plain int is just obscene.
> 
> int __generic_file_fsync_nolock(struct file *, loff_t start, loff_t end,
> 		bool datasync);

While I agree that it's not needed for the file, leaving it out is a bit
silly.

> (yes, the other variants don't use a bool for datasync, but they should)

.. including the ->fsync prototype to make it work ..