linux-kernel - Re: Proposal for "proper" durable fsync() and fdatasync()

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:	Tue, 26 Feb 2008 07:59:21 +0000
From:	Jamie Lokier <jamie@...reable.org>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	Chris Wedgwood <cw@...f.org>
Subject: Re: Proposal for "proper" durable fsync() and fdatasync()

Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 07:26:50 +0000 Jamie Lokier <jamie@...reable.org> wrote:
> 
> > (It would be nicer if sync_file_range()
> > took a vector of ranges for better elevator scheduling, but let's
> > ignore that :-)
> 
> Two passes:
> 
> Pass 1: shove each of the segments into the queue with
>         SYNC_FILE_RANGE_WAIT_BEFORE|SYNC_FILE_RANGE_WRITE
> 
> Pass 2: wait for them all to complete and return accumulated result
>         with SYNC_FILE_RANGE_WAIT_AFTER

Thanks.

Seems ok, though being able to cork the I/O until the last one would
be a bonus (like TCP_MORE...  SYNC_FILE_RANGE_MORE?)

I'm imagining I'd omit the SYNC_FILE_RANGE_WAIT_BEFORE.  Is there a
reason why you have it there?  The man page isn't very enlightening.

-- Jamie
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/