Re: [RFC][PATCH] Possible data integrity problems in lots of filesystems?

From: Boaz Harrosh
Date: Thu Nov 25 2010 - 07:18:43 EST


On 11/25/2010 01:47 PM, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 12:51:11PM +0200, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
>
> It does not get it right, because of the situation I described
> above. Background writeout can come in first, and clear the inode
> dirty bits, and call your ->write_inode for async writeout.
>
> That means you skip doing the exofs_put_io_state(), and (I presume)
> this means you aren't waiting for write completion there.
>
> What then happens is that sync_inode_metadata() from your fsync
> does not call ->write_inode because the inode dirty bits are clear.
> It's basically a noop. So you need to either make your .write_inode
> always synchronous, or wait for it in your .fsync and .sync_fs.
>

Rrr I now see what you mean, that the previous call to
writeback_single_inode(wait==0) came and go without actually
finishing because exofs_write_inode(wait==0).

So I wish there was an
write_inode_async_done() that will actually do the final inode_sync_complete
or something like that, right? (That I could call from exofs::updatei_done)

Sigh. I think I'll go with the always wait==1 at exofs_write_inode() for
now. Just as your patch.

If there is nothing better by the next Kernel I might consider my own
wait_event() in exofs_file_fsync()

ACK-by: Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@xxxxxxxxxxx>

Thanks
Boaz
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/