Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932695AbWCPSJL (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Mar 2006 13:09:11 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932694AbWCPSJL (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Mar 2006 13:09:11 -0500 Received: from thunk.org ([69.25.196.29]:8171 "EHLO thunker.thunk.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932691AbWCPSJK (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Mar 2006 13:09:10 -0500 Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 13:09:04 -0500 From: "Theodore Ts'o" To: Badari Pulavarty Cc: Andrew Morton , sct@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, jack@suse.cz Subject: Re: ext3_ordered_writepage() questions Message-ID: <20060316180904.GA29275@thunk.org> Mail-Followup-To: Theodore Ts'o , Badari Pulavarty , Andrew Morton , sct@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, jack@suse.cz References: <1141777204.17095.33.camel@dyn9047017100.beaverton.ibm.com> <20060308124726.GC4128@lst.de> <4410551D.5000303@us.ibm.com> <20060309153550.379516e1.akpm@osdl.org> <4410CA25.2090400@us.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4410CA25.2090400@us.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060126 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: tytso@thunk.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on thunker.thunk.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1680 Lines: 34 > >Yup. Ordered-mode JBD commit needs to write and wait upon all dirty > >file-data buffers prior to journalling the metadata. If we didn't run > >journal_dirty_data_fn() against those buffers then they'd still be under > >I/O after commit had completed. > > > In non-block allocation case, what metadata are we journaling in > writepage() ? > block allocation happend in prepare_write() and commit_write() journaled the > transaction. All the meta data updates should be done there. What JBD > commit are you refering to here ? Basically, this boils down to what is our definition of ordered-mode? If the goal is to make sure we avoid the security exposure of allocating a block and then crashing before we write the data block, potentially exposing previously written data that might be belong to another user, then what Badari is suggesting would avoid this particular problem. However, if what we are doing is overwriting our own data with more an updated, more recent version of the data block, do we guarantee that any ordering semantics apply? For example, what if we write a data block, and then follow it up with some kind of metadata update (say we touch atime, or add an extended attribute). Do we guarantee that if the metadata update is committed, that the data block will have made it to disk as well? Today that is the way things work, but is that guarantee part of the contract of ordered-mode? - Ted - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/