lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Sep]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: POSIX violation by writeback error
On Tue, Sep 04, 2018 at 06:23:48PM +0200, Rogier Wolff wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 04, 2018 at 12:12:03PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > Well, I think the point was that in the above examples you'd prefer that
> > the read just fail--no need to keep the data. A bit marking the file
> > (or even the entire filesystem) unreadable would satisfy posix, I guess.
> > Whether that's practical, I don't know.
>
> When you would do it like that (mark the whole filesystem as "in
> error") things go from bad to worse even faster. The Linux kernel
> tries to keep the system up even in the face of errors.
>
> With that suggestion, having one application run into a writeback
> error would effectively crash the whole system because the filesystem
> may be the root filesystem and stuff like "sshd" that you need to
> diagnose the problem needs to be read from the disk....

Well, the absolutist position on posix compliance here would be that a
crash is still preferable to returning the wrong data. And for the
cases 焦晓冬 gives, that sounds right? Maybe it's the wrong balance in
general, I don't know. And we do already have filesystems with
panic-on-error options, so if they aren't used maybe then maybe users
have already voted against that level of strictness.

--b.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-09-04 20:54    [W:0.053 / U:0.616 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site