linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ext3: wait on all pending commits in ext3_sync

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <49820C11.3070202@redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 29 Jan 2009 15:05:37 -0500
From:	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
To:	Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...il.com>
CC:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
	Arthur Jones <ajones@...erbed.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
	"sct@...hat.com" <sct@...hat.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext3: wait on all pending commits in ext3_sync_fs

Mike Snitzer wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 12:27 PM, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> wrote:
>> On Tue 13-01-09 23:24:02, Theodore Tso wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 04:14:11PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>>>> This looks sane to me, and it does fix the below testcase.
>>>>
>>>> Care to formally propose it?
>>> Can we confirm what is being proposed?  From following this thread, I
>>> think what folks are suggesting is:
>>>
>>> 1)  Revert the current "ext3/4: wait on all pending ocmmits in ext3/4_sync_fs"
>>  Yes.
>>
>>> 2)  Apply Jan's patch "jbd[2]: Fix return value of journal_start_commit()"
>>  Yes.
>>
>>> 3)  Also apply Jan's patch "jbd2: Skip commit of a transaction without
>>> any buffers" since it appears to be a good optimization (although it's
>>> not clear it would happen once we revert (1), above.
>>  Yes, it's an optimization but I'm still a bit afraid about something
>> relying on jbd2_journal_force_commit() implying a barrier which would not
>> always be a case after this patch... So we should probably audit all users of
>> ext4_force_commit() and check that this change is fine with them.
> 
> Ted/Jan/Eric,
> 
> I just wanted to followup on this to see what the plan is.  Items 1
> and 2 haven't occurred in any of the ext4.git branches that I can see.
>  I could be missing something but it seems this may have slipped
> through the ext[34] cracks?

Hm, I agree.

Jan, do you want to re-send it in its own message rather than buried in
the other thread?  I don't know how we technically handle a "revert"
upstream, to be honest.

-Eric
--
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/