| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20080520143315.GB3882@ucw.cz> Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 16:33:16 +0200 From: Pavel Machek <pavel@...e.cz> To: Morten Welinder <mwelinder@...il.com> Cc: "linux-os (Dick Johnson)" <linux-os@...logic.com>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: Deleting large files On Wed 2008-05-07 19:14:33, Morten Welinder wrote: > > Suppose you had an N GB file that just filled up the disk. You now > > delete it, but get control back before it is really deleted. You > > now start to write a new file that will eventually just fill up > > the disk. [...] > > That argument ought to stop right there. If you believe that deleting a > file will necessarily and immediately give you back the space, then you > are wrong in the current state of the affairs already. Not if you are the only user. > user experience. Forking a process to do the deletion (a) is pathetic, > (b) is not currently done, and (c) does not work: you cannot get a result > right away, i.e., you lose error handling. If you fork a kernel thread, you lose error handling, too. Think -EIO when writing back bitmaps... (Hmm, you'd have to use O_SYNC to see that, so this is probably minor). I guess doing freeing asynchronously would be okay in the 'close' case... Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists