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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Sat, 30 Oct 2021 14:05:26 +0200
From:   "Alejandro Colomar (man-pages)" <>
To:     LKML <>
        Christoph Hellwig <>,
        Al Viro <>,
        David Howells <>,
        Jens Axboe <>
Subject: Re: [Bug 214873] New: man 2 fsync implies possibility to return early

[CC += LKML and a few kernel programmers]


On 10/29/21 23:25, wrote:
>              Bug ID: 214873
>             Summary: man 2 fsync implies possibility to return early
>             Product: Documentation
>             Version: unspecified
>            Hardware: All
>                  OS: Linux
>              Status: NEW
>            Severity: low
>            Priority: P1
>           Component: man-pages
>            Assignee:
>            Reporter:
>          Regression: No
> The manpage for the fsync system call (
> ) describes as flushing the
> related caches to a storage device so that the information can even be
> retrieved after a crash/reboot. But then it does make the statement "The call
> blocks until the device reports that the transfer has completed." which causes
> now some interpretation: What happens if the device reports early completion
> (e.g. via a bugged firmware) of the transfer while the kernel still sees unsent
> caches in its context? Does fsync() indeed return then as the last referenced
> sentence implies or does it continue to send the caches the kernel sees to
> guarantee data integrity as good as possible as the previous documented part
> might imply?
> I noticed this discrepancy when reporting a bug against dd (
> ) that causes dd to return
> early when it is used with its fsync capability while the kernel still sees
> caches and consulting the fsync() manpage made it not clear if such a
> theoretical possibility from the fsync() system call would be intended or not
> so eventually this part could be slighty enhanced.

I don't know how fsync(2) works.  Could some kernel fs programmer please 
check if the text matches the implementation, and if that issue reported 
should be reworded in the manual page?



Alejandro Colomar
Linux man-pages comaintainer;

Powered by blists - more mailing lists