On 4/7/19 3:13 PM, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2019 at 01:10:55PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> On 4/6/19 6:27 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 09:55:19PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
>>>>
>>>> When Ted is done laughing, I really would like to consider something
>>>> like this to solve the problem of grub-style bootloaders requiring a
>>>> lease on the blocks underneath a file with a term exceeding that of the
>>>> running kernel.
>>>>
>>>> We can probably skip the harsh synchronous writes in favor of fsync on
>>>> close, but we would need to keep the critical component of checkpointing
>>>> the journal on fsync and syncfs.
>>>
>>> At least for ext4, we don't need to add anything new, since FIFREEZE
>>> force a journal checkpoint. So we could try to get a patch into grub
>>> which causes update_grub to open each kernel that it finds, and calls
>>> fsync(2) on it, and then for all file systems where it finds a kernel,
>>> it can call FIFREEZE and FITHAW on it, and that would be that.
>>
>> Certain operating systems have hacked this in. My concern would be when
>> /boot is on / ... calling FIFREEZE on the root fs would most likely be
>> a bad thing. Certain operating systems avoid calling FIFREEZE for
>> /boot-on-root. ;)
>>
>> Doing it for a standalone /boot seems like a reasonable (if hacky)
>> workaround as long as we lack a more targeted quiesce interface...
>
> The other problem we noticed is that neither the grub scripts nor the
> rpm package scripts bother to call fsync on the files they write (or
> sync after they're done to mop up after everyone else), so I figured as
> long as I'm ("jokingly") working around it all in kernel space, why not
> just go all the way? :P
>
> Ok, I'll go work on an ioctl or something.
FWIW, I didn't mean that I didn't like bootfs! I kind of like bootfs!
-Eric
