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 11:43:45 -0500
From:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
CC:	Jamie Lokier <jamie@...reable.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	Chris Wedgwood <cw@...f.org>
Subject: Re: Proposal for "proper" durable fsync() and fdatasync()

Nick Piggin wrote:
> Anyway, the idea of making fsync/fdatasync etc. safe by default is
> a good idea IMO, and is a bad bug that we don't do that :(

Agreed...  it's also disappointing that [unless I'm mistaken] you have 
to hack each filesystem to support barriers.

It seems far easier to make sync_blkdev() Do The Right Thing, and 
magically make all filesystems data-safe.

	Jeff


--
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/