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.
