On Tue, 7 Jul 2015, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > he (or she) pulls the storage device out of the system, moves it to another > > system, makes changes (say removes the file written to by the process above, > > so the blocks previously occupied by that file are now used for some > > metadata) > > and moves the storage back to the suspended system. The system is resumed > > and the writing process continues writing possibly to the wrong blocks and > > corrupts the filesystem. > > That is a tough nut. But that's not a reason to make it worse. > I'd say there's no reason not to use a secondary interface to > suspend without syncing or to extend or introduce such an interface > if the API is deficient.
Indeed, the problem Rafael outlined always exists whether or not the kernel does a sync. Even if no I/O is in progress when the system goes to sleep, if the user moves a portable storage device with a mounted filesystem to another computer and updates it before waking the system up, corruption is highly likely. In principle this could be solved by adding suspend/resume callbacks to filesystems. For example, the resume callback could verify that the superblock had not been changed since the suspend occurred. Or there could be some other simple way of determining that the filesystem had not been remounted and changed. Either way, this is irrelevant to the question of whether the kernel should issue a sync when suspending. Alan Stern -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
