Hi,
Eric Sandeen wrote:
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 09:36:04AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 05:52:35PM +0900, Takashi Sato wrote:
I think that your concern is that the freezer cannot recognize the occurrence
of a timeout and it continues the backup process and the backup data is
corrupted finally.
What timeout should happen? the freeze ioctl must not return until the
filesystem is a clean state and all writes are blocked.
The suggestion was that *UN*freeze would return ETIMEDOUT if the
filesystem had already unfrozen itself, I think. That way you know that
the snapshot you just took is worthless, at least.
But why would the filesystem every unfreeze itself? That defeats the
whole point of freezing it.
I agree. Was just trying to clarify the above point.
But there have been what, 12 submissions now, with the unfreeze timeout
in place so it's a persistent theme ;)
Perhaps a demonstration of just how easy (or not easy) it is to deadlock
a filesystem by freezing the root might be in order, at least.
And even if it is relatively easy, I still maintain that it is the
administrator's role to not inflict damage on the machine being
administered. There are a lot of potentially dangerous tools at root's
disposal; why this particular one needs a nanny I'm still not quite sure.
I think we need the timeout for the case someone dirties so much data
with mmap, hence the freeze process is swapped out and cannot unfreeze.
Cheers, Takashi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
