linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] fs: remove the never implemented aio

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: <20161031130754.GA9853@lst.de>
Date:   Mon, 31 Oct 2016 14:07:54 +0100
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To:     Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Dmitry Monakhov <dmonakhov@...nvz.org>,
        Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-aio@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] fs: remove the never implemented aio_fsync file
        operation

On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 10:23:31AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> This doesn't belong in this patchset.

It does.  I can't fix up the calling conventions for a methods that
was never implemented.

> Regardless, can we just implement the damned thing rather than
> removing it?  Plenty of people have asked for it and they still want
> this functionality. I've sent a couple of different prototypes that
> worked but got bikeshedded to death, and IIRC Ben also tried to get
> it implemented but that went nowhere because other parts of his
> patchset got bikeshedded to death.
> 
> If nothing else, just let me implement it in XFS like I did the
> first time so when all the bikshedding stops we can convert it to
> the One True AIO Interface that is decided on.

I'm not going to complain about a proper implementation, but right now
we don't have any, and I'm not even sure the method signature is
all that suitable.  E.g. for the in-kernel users we'd really want a 
ranged fsync like the normal fsync anyway.