linux-kernel - Re: vfs: Add MS_FLUSHONFSYNC mount flag

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:	Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:14:39 +0900
From:	Fernando Luis Vázquez Cao 
	<fernando@....ntt.co.jp>
To:	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
Cc:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Theodore Tso <tytso@....EDU>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Pavel Machek <pavel@...e.cz>,
	kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>, fernando@....ac.jp,
	Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: vfs: Add MS_FLUSHONFSYNC mount flag

On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 11:13 -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Fernando Luis Vázquez Cao wrote:
> > This mount flag will be used to determine whether the block device's write
> > cache should be flush or not on fsync()/fdatasync().
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Fernando Luis Vazquez Cao <fernando@....ntt.co.jp>
> > ---
> 
> Again, apologies for chiming in late.
> 
> But wouldn't it be better to make this a block device property rather
> than a new filesystem mount option?
> 
> That way the filesystem can always do "the right thing" and call the
> blkdev flush on fsync.
> 
> The block device *could* choose to ignore this in hardware if it knows
> it's built with a nonvolatile write cache or if it has no write cache.
> 
> Somewhere in the middle, if an administrator knows they have a UPS they
> trust and hardware that stays connected to it, they could tune the bdev
> to ignore these flush requests.
> 
> Also that way if you have 8 partitions on a battery-backed blockdev, you
> can tune it once, instead of needing to mount all 8 filesystems with the
> new option.

The main reason I decided to go for the mount option approach is to be
consistent with what we do when it comes to write barriers. Treating one
as a mount option and the other as a (possibly) sysfs tunable property
seems a bit confusing to me.

Do you suggest using sysfs tunables instead?

- Fernando

--
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/