mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
Cc: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
	Dan Bonachea <bonachead@comcast.net>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: PROBLEM: pthread-safety bug in write(2) on Linux 2.6.x
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 00:05:49 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1144969549.12387.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0604131531440.3701@g5.osdl.org>

On Iau, 2006-04-13 at 15:40 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > Outside of O_APPEND the specification says only that
> > - The write starts at the file position
> > - The file position is updated before the syscall returns
> > 
> > It makes no other guarantee I can see.
> 
> Right. I think this is purely a "quality of implementation" issue. We 
> already follow the spec, the question is whether we want to be better than 
> that.

Quality for whom ? There is a measurable cost to all that extra locking
which will hurt everyone. Given existing kernels don't make the
guarantee and SuS v3 does not make the guarantee the apps that need it
will continue to do the extra work themselves anyway.

I'd say the existing approach is the best quality of implementation for
those needing performance and that the cost for those needing ordering
guarantees in Linux is already astoundingly low thanks to the excellent
work done on futex based posix locking in glibc. I can choose to pay the
costs today, if we do extra locking I cannot opt out.

And of course I too would like to know if anyone is hitting O_APPEND
examples of this problem and if so on what fs ....

Alan


  reply	other threads:[~2006-04-13 22:56 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2006-04-13  1:45 Dan Bonachea
2006-04-13  2:10 ` Alistair John Strachan
2006-04-13  4:46 ` Andrew Morton
2006-04-13  5:33   ` Nick Piggin
2006-04-13 15:01     ` Linus Torvalds
2006-04-13 15:28       ` Linus Torvalds
2006-04-14 10:20         ` Nikita Danilov
2006-04-13 21:50       ` Alan Cox
2006-04-13 22:06         ` Dan Bonachea
2006-04-13 23:03           ` Linus Torvalds
2006-04-13 23:11           ` Alan Cox
2006-04-13 23:19             ` Linus Torvalds
2006-04-13 22:40         ` Linus Torvalds
2006-04-13 23:05           ` Alan Cox [this message]
2006-04-13 23:06             ` Linus Torvalds
2006-04-13 23:11               ` Linus Torvalds
2006-04-13  9:18   ` Dan Bonachea
2006-04-13  9:56     ` Andrew Morton
2006-04-13 10:28       ` Kyle Moffett
2006-04-13 14:14     ` Jan Engelhardt
2010-12-19 22:45 ` Jens Moser
     [not found] <60Z8f-4QA-25@gated-at.bofh.it>
     [not found] ` <611Wl-u5-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
     [not found]   ` <616k2-6Xz-27@gated-at.bofh.it>
2006-04-14  9:14     ` Kai Henningsen
2006-04-27  9:06 Samuel Thibault
2006-04-27 15:23 ` Linus Torvalds

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1144969549.12387.33.camel@localhost.localdomain \
    --to=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
    --cc=akpm@osdl.org \
    --cc=bonachead@comcast.net \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
    --cc=torvalds@osdl.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®