linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] clear PageError bit in msync & fsync

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: <4CDD73AF.8070505@redhat.com>
Date:	Fri, 12 Nov 2010 12:04:47 -0500
From:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To:	Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Ted Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	esandeen@...hat.com, jmoyer@...hat.com,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, lmcilroy@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clear PageError bit in msync & fsync

On 11/12/2010 10:52 AM, Jeff Layton wrote:

> Now, process A issues an fsync. He gets an error but his data was
> flushed to disk just fine. Is that also incorrect behavior?

I suspect it is better for fsync to return an error when
it wasn't process A's error (but there was an error), than
to pretend everything was just fine when in fact an error
did happen.

When getting an error, the program can retry the write
(to redirty the pages) and retry the IO by calling fsync
again.

If no real error happened, at worst it gets to do the
IO twice.

-- 
All rights reversed
--
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/