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]

Message-ID: <20080226092536.GA9213@shareable.org>
Date:	Tue, 26 Feb 2008 09:25:37 +0000
From:	Jamie Lokier <jamie@...reable.org>
To:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.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()

Jeff Garzik wrote:
> [snip huge long proposal]
> 
> Rather than invent new APIs, we should fix the existing ones to _really_ 
> flush data to physical media.

Btw, one reason for the length is the current block request API isn't
sufficient even to make fsync() durable with _no_ new APIs.

It offers ordering barriers only, which aren't enough.  I tried to
explain, discuss some changes and then suggest optimisations.

-- 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/