linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] io_uring: add support for barrier 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 9 Apr 2019 11:17:42 -0700
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc:     linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] io_uring: add support for barrier fsync

On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 10:27:43AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> It's a quite common use case to issue a bunch of writes, then an fsync
> or fdatasync when they complete. Since io_uring doesn't guarantee any
> type of ordering, the application must track issued writes and wait
> with the fsync issue until they have completed.
> 
> Add an IORING_FSYNC_BARRIER flag that helps with this so the application
> doesn't have to do this manually. If this flag is set for the fsync
> request, we won't issue it until pending IO has already completed.

I think we need a much more detailed explanation of the semantics,
preferably in man page format.

Barrier at least in Linux traditionally means all previously submitted
requests have finished and no new ones are started until the
barrier request finishes, which is very heavy handed.  Is that what
this is supposed to do?  If not what are the exact guarantees vs
ordering and or barrier semantics?