linux-kernel - Re: [patch 8/8] fs: add i_op->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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20110107183202.GA13586@infradead.org>
Date:	Fri, 7 Jan 2011 13:32:02 -0500
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:	Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 8/8] fs: add i_op->sync_inode

On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 01:30:47PM -0500, Ted Ts'o wrote:
> > the write_inode in XFS is already trying to do it, it's just the
> > caller not copying with it:
> > 
> >  - if we can't get locks for a non-blocking ->write_inode we return
> >    EAGAIN, and the callers sets the dirty bits again.
> 
> I like that solution; it might be one of the easier ways to maintain
> backwards compatibility.  Especially since (correct me if I am wrong)
> the simpler file systems which always write out the inode in the case
> of a non-blocking write_inode, say, like say the fat file system, are
> immune from this specific problem, right?

Yes.  Also one of the patches in Nick's series actually implements
this already.  Looks like we lost that fact when arguing about other
things..
--
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/