linux-kernel - Re: 2.6.29 -mm merge plans

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: <20090106151131.b6c4ff0b.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Tue, 6 Jan 2009 15:11:31 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Subject: Re: 2.6.29 -mm merge plans

(cc added)

On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 17:57:44 -0500
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 12:43:00AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > fs-sys_sync-fix.patch
> 
> I'm not sure this is a good idea.  Concurrent syncs are a bad idea
> to start with and we should just synchronyze do_sync completely.
> sync_filesystems as one of the main components of do_sync already
> is synchronized in that way, and taking that to a higher level would
> get rid of all the worries about concurrent syncs.

Yes, single-threading sys_sync() would fix the problem which that patch
addresses.

However there are a lot of performance and correctness issues around
sys_sync()-versus-fsync(), etc for which such a simple fix won't be
acceptable.

--
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/