linux-kernel - Re: BUG: Failure to send REQ_FLUSH on unmount on ext3, ext4, and FS in general

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: <16968FD306209AF92D4660B9@Ximines.local>
Date:	Mon, 23 May 2011 18:39:23 +0100
From:	Alex Bligh <alex@...x.org.uk>
To:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
cc:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Alex Bligh <alex@...x.org.uk>
Subject: Re: BUG: Failure to send REQ_FLUSH on unmount on ext3, ext4, and FS
 in general

Jan,

--On 23 May 2011 19:29:06 +0200 Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> wrote:

>   I wish it was this simple ;) The trouble is that clever filesystems -
> e.g. xfs, ext4 - will send the flush when it's needed (after a transaction
> commit). So sending it after flushing the device (which happens from
> generic sync code) would result in two flushes instead of one - not good
> for performance (although these days when we do merging of flush requests
> the result need not be that bad).
>
> The fs might indicate whether it handles barriers itself or whether it
> wants VFS to handle it but that's where it's gets a bit complicated /
> controversial ;).

Well, to "fix" sync(), one could simply look at whether the file system
had ever sent a REQ_FLUSH or REQ_FUA since that FS was mounted. If there
has been one, assume the FS is taking responsibility for sending them.

I'm presuming that if just umount() were altered to do a REQ_FLUSH,
the potential presence of 2 sync()s would not be too offensive, as
unmount isn't exactly time critical, and as Christoph pointed out in
the other thread, a REQ_FLUSH when the write cache has recently been
emptied isn't going to take long.

>> Would there be any interested in these patches if I cooked them up,
>> or did they die because of opposition before rather than apathy?
>
>   I guess you might come with some proposal and post it to linux-fsdevel
> (include Al Viro and Christoph Hellwig in CC) and see what happens...

Ah, fsdevel not here. OK. Partly I'd like to understand whether
sync() not flushing write caches on barrier-less file systems
is a good thing or a bad thing. I know barriers are better, but if
writing to (e.g.) FAT32, I'm betting there is little prospect of
barrier support.

-- 
Alex Bligh
--
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/