Re: Is rename(2) atomic on FAT?

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

 



On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 2:53 PM Colin Walters <walters@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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.

The symlink method now being used, you describe as an OSTree-specific
invention. How is the new method you're proposing more generic such
that it's not also an OSTree-specific invention?

-- 
Chris Murphy



[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