linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 16/31] loop: use aio to perform io on the underlying file

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <50BD66D9.8080408@oracle.com>
Date:	Mon, 03 Dec 2012 20:58:33 -0600
From:	Dave Kleikamp <dave.kleikamp@...cle.com>
To:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
CC:	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Zach Brown <zab@...bo.net>,
	"Maxim V. Patlasov" <mpatlasov@...allels.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 16/31] loop: use aio to perform io on the underlying
 file

On 12/03/2012 08:52 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 10:59:39AM -0600, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
>> On 11/22/2012 05:06 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:

>>> And this extra fsync is now not done in the aio path. I.e. the AIO
>>> completion path needs to issue the fsync to maintain correct REQ_FUA
>>> semantics...
>>
>> If this is really necessary, I can fix it.
> 
> Absolutely. If we don't implement FUA properly, we'll end up with
> corrupted filesystems and/or data loss when kernel crashes or
> powerloss occurs. That's not an acceptable outcome, so we need FUA
> to be implemented properly.

Okay, just wanted to make sure.

Thanks,
Shaggy
--
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/