linux-kernel - Re: Flushing the (page?) cache for a block device

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: <20090330074052.GA9667@localhost>
Date:	Mon, 30 Mar 2009 15:40:52 +0800
From:	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
To:	Sascha Silbe <sascha-ccparty-c74088b0@...be.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Flushing the (page?) cache for a block device

Hi Sascha,

On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 02:54:39PM +0200, Sascha Silbe wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I'd like to do a verification step after writing to a USB stick (block  
> device level, no filesystem involved). For this to work as intended, I  
> need to ensure the reads are not satisfied from blocks still in cache,  
> i.e.: flush "the cache" (page cache IIUC) for the block device in  
> question (and _only_ this device).
> Some research resulted in the following options:
>
> 1. Open the target file using O_DIRECT while writing.
>      Doesn't feel like the right thing to do; only want to flush the  
> cache, not circumvent it. Might severly limit performance as writes are  
> synchronous.
>      Interface isn't very nice (need to ensure alignment to page size in 
> memory).
>
> 2. Use posix_fadvise() with POSIX_FADV_DONTNEED.
>      Probably works with the current kernel (haven't tested yet), but  
> there's absolutely no guarantee.
>      Interface much better than O_DIRECT.

FYI, here is a handy fadvise tool:
        http://www.zip.com.au/~akpm/linux/patches/stuff/ext3-tools.tar.gz

Usage:
        fadvise /some/file 0 0 dontneed

Thanks,
Fengguang

> 3. Flush the entire page cache using procfs.
>      Brute force, last resort. Will severly impact performance of my  
> tool (as it's going to write to several devices in parallel).
>
>
> Is there a better method I've not found yet? Nr. 2 sounds like the way  
> to go, but I don't like that it could (silently!) stop working with any  
> new kernel version.
>
>
> PS: Not subscribed, so please CC me.
>
> CU Sascha
>
> -- 
> http://sascha.silbe.org/
> http://www.infra-silbe.de/


--
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/