Re: [PATCH 4/7][TAKE5] support new modes in fallocate
From: Amit K. Arora <hidden>
Date: 2007-06-26 19:09:44
Also in:
linux-fsdevel, linux-xfs, lkml
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 11:34:13AM -0400, Andreas Dilger wrote:
On Jun 26, 2007 16:02 +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:quoted
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 03:46:26PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:quoted
Can you clarify - what is the current behaviour when ENOSPC (or some other error) is hit? Does it keep the current fallocate() or does it free it?Currently it is left on the file system implementation. In ext4, we do not undo preallocation if some error (say, ENOSPC) is hit. Hence it may end up with partial (pre)allocation. This is inline with dd and posix_fallocate, which also do not free the partially allocated space.Since I believe the XFS allocation ioctls do it the opposite way (free preallocated space on error) this should be encoded into the flags. Having it "filesystem dependent" just means that nobody will be happy.
Ok, got your point. Maybe we can have a flag for this, as you suggested. But, default behavior IMHO should be _not_ to undo partial allocation (thus the file system will have the option of supporting this flag or not and it will be inline with posix_fallocate; XFS will obviously like to support this flag, inline with its existing behavior).
quoted
quoted
For FA_ZERO_SPACE - I'd think this would (IMHO) be the default - we don't want to expose uninitialized disk blocks to userspace. I'm not sure if this makes sense at all.I don't think we need to make it default - atleast for filesystems which have a mechanism to distinguish preallocated blocks from "regular" ones.What I mean is that any data read from the file should have the "appearance" of being zeroed (whether zeroes are actually written to disk or not). What I _think_ David is proposing is to allow fallocate() to return without marking the blocks even "uninitialized" and subsequent reads would return the old data from the disk.
I can't think of a good reason for this (i.e. returning stale data from preallocated blocks). It is infact a security issue to me. Anyhow, this may though be beneficial for file systems which have noticable overhead in marking the blocks "uninitialized/preallocated". Can you or David please throw some light on how this option might really be helpful ? Thanks! -- Regards, Amit Arora