Date: 17 Apr 2001 15:03:52 -0400 From: Randell Jesup <rjesup@wgate.com> To: Kirk McKusick <mckusick@mckusick.com> Cc: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Background Fsck Message-ID: <ybug0f773hj.fsf@jesup.eng.tvol.net.jesup.eng.tvol.net> In-Reply-To: Kirk McKusick's message of "Mon, 16 Apr 2001 16:53:08 -0700" References: <200104162353.QAA55416@beastie.mckusick.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Kirk McKusick <mckusick@mckusick.com> writes:
> 2) They start a second background fsck running at the same time as the
> first.
>
>This would be indeterminate in the same way as running two foreground
>fsck's on the same filesystem would be indeterminate. This failure
>senario has not been considered problematic in the past, so is not
>guarded against.
...
>Only (2) seems to be a problem, and it has not proven to be an issue in
>years past. If it is perceived to be a bigger problem now, a fix could be
>found. A general solution would be to flock the underlying special device
>as this would work for both foreground and background fsck. At the moment,
>the /dev filesystem cannot handle advisory file locks, so some serious
>work would be needed there first.
I personally don't like leaving uzi's around with the trigger-lock
removed. Admittedly, no one here would pick it up - or at least they
wouldn't admit to it later... ;-)
I think we should take a shot at adding the lock code that someone
else apparently did a while back and close this hole.
--
Randell Jesup, Worldgate Communications, ex-Scala, ex-Amiga OS team ('88-94)
rjesup@wgate.com
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?ybug0f773hj.fsf>