linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] ocfs2 changes for 2.6.32

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.01.0909171316230.4950@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Thu, 17 Sep 2009 13:17:55 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>
cc:	Joel Becker <Joel.Becker@...cle.com>,
	Mark Fasheh <mfasheh@...e.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	ocfs2-devel@....oracle.com
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] ocfs2 changes for 2.6.32

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009, Roland Dreier wrote:
> 
> I guess one bit of semantics to figure out is what happens if copyfile()
> does the async case but then copyfile_ctrl() returns an error halfway
> through... is the state of the dest file just undefined?

I think that's the one that most filesystems would prefer. Maybe the file 
is there, it's just that it's only half copied because the filesystem 
filled up. 

Making filesystems give atomicity guarantees would be hard for the async 
case. 

Of course, if the filesystem can do the copy entirely atomically (ie by 
just incrementing a refcount), then it can give atomicity guarantees, but 
then you'd never see the async case either.

		Linus
--
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/