Re: Is rename(2) atomic on FAT?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On Tue, Oct 22, 2019, at 8:10 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> For multiple kernels,  it doesn't matter if a crash happens anywhere
> from new kernel being written to FAT, through initramfs, because the
> old bootloader configuration still points to old kernel + initramfs.
> But in multiple kernel distros, the bootloader configuration needs
> modification or a new drop in scriptlet to point to the new
> kernel+initramfs pair. And that needs to be completely atomic: write
> new files to a tmp location, that way a crash won't matter. The tricky
> part is to write out the bootloader configuration change such that it
> can be an atomic operation.

Related: https://github.com/ostreedev/ostree/issues/1951
There I'm proposing there to not try to fix this at the kernel/filesystem
level (since we can't do much on FAT, and even on real filesystems we
have the journaling-vs-bootloader issues), but instead create a protocol
between things writing bootloader data and the bootloaders to help
verify integrity.



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]

  Powered by Linux