linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCHv5 2/9] fs/buffer.c: Add generic_buffer

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]

Date:   Mon, 17 Apr 2023 22:04:29 -0700
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:     Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc:     Ritesh Harjani <ritesh.list@...il.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        "Darrick J . Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
        Ojaswin Mujoo <ojaswin@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Disha Goel <disgoel@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv5 2/9] fs/buffer.c: Add generic_buffer_fsync
 implementation

On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 06:45:50PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> Hum, I think the difference sync vs fsync is too subtle and non-obvious.

Agreed.

> I can see sensible pairs like:
> 
> 	__generic_buffers_fsync() - "__" indicates you should know what you
> 				are doing when calling this
> 	generic_buffers_fsync()
> 
> or
> 
> 	generic_buffers_fsync()
> 	generic_file_fsync() - difficult at this point as there's name
> 			       clash
> 
> or
> 
> 	generic_buffers_fsync_noflush()
> 	generic_buffers_fsync() - obvious what the default "safe" choice
> 				  is.
> 
> or something like that.

I'd prefer the last option as the most explicit one.