[Bug 214873] man 2 fsync implies possibility to return early

[bugzilla-daemon@bugzilla.kernel.org]

https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=214873

--- Comment #1 from Alejandro Colomar (man-pages) (alx.manpages@gmail.com) ---
[CC += LKML and a few kernel programmers]

Hi,

On 10/29/21 23:25, bugzilla-daemon@bugzilla.kernel.org wrote:
> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=214873
> 
>              Bug ID: 214873
>             Summary: man 2 fsync implies possibility to return early
>             Product: Documentation
>             Version: unspecified
>            Hardware: All
>                  OS: Linux
>              Status: NEW
>            Severity: low
>            Priority: P1
>           Component: man-pages
>            Assignee: documentation_man-pages@kernel-bugs.osdl.org
>            Reporter: sworddragon2@gmail.com
>          Regression: No
> 
> The manpage for the fsync system call (
> https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/fsync.2.html ) describes as flushing
> the
> related caches to a storage device so that the information can even be
> retrieved after a crash/reboot. But then it does make the statement "The call
> blocks until the device reports that the transfer has completed." which
> causes
> now some interpretation: What happens if the device reports early completion
> (e.g. via a bugged firmware) of the transfer while the kernel still sees
> unsent
> caches in its context? Does fsync() indeed return then as the last referenced
> sentence implies or does it continue to send the caches the kernel sees to
> guarantee data integrity as good as possible as the previous documented part
> might imply?
> 
> I noticed this discrepancy when reporting a bug against dd (
> https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=51345 ) that causes dd to
> return
> early when it is used with its fsync capability while the kernel still sees
> caches and consulting the fsync() manpage made it not clear if such a
> theoretical possibility from the fsync() system call would be intended or not
> so eventually this part could be slighty enhanced.
> 

I don't know how fsync(2) works.  Could some kernel fs programmer please 
check if the text matches the implementation, and if that issue reported 
should be reworded in the manual page?

Thanks,

Alex

-- 
You may reply to this email to add a comment.

You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching the assignee of the bug.