linux-kernel - Re: ext2 + -osync: not as easy as it seems

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:	Wed, 14 Jan 2009 15:08:04 +0100
From:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
To:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
	Fernando Luis Vázquez Cao 
	<fernando@....ntt.co.jp>, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Pavel Machek <pavel@...e.cz>,
	kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, sandeen@...hat.com
Subject: Re: ext2 + -osync: not as easy as it seems

On Wed, Jan 14 2009, Jan Kara wrote:
> > I'm not sure what you mean; if the barrier operation isn't flushing
> > all of the caches all the way out to the iron oxide, it's not going to
> > be working properly no matter where it is being called, whether it's
> > in ext4_sync_file() or in jbd2's journal_submit_commit_record().
>   Well, I thought that a barrier, as an abstraction, only guarantees that
> any IO which happened before the barrier hits the iron before any IO which
> has been submitted after a barrier. This is actually enough for a
> journalling to work correctly but it's not enough for fsync() guarantees.
> But I might be wrong...

It also guarentees that when you get a completion for that barrier
write, it's on safe storage. Think of it as a flush-write-flush
operation, in the presence of write back caching.

-- 
Jens Axboe

--
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/