Christoph Hellwig wrote:
quoted text
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 09:36:04AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 05:52:35PM +0900, Takashi Sato wrote:
>>>> I think that your concern is that the freezer cannot recognize the occurrence
>>>> of a timeout and it continues the backup process and the backup data is
>>>> corrupted finally.
>>> What timeout should happen?  the freeze ioctl must not return until the
>>> filesystem is a clean state and all writes are blocked.
>> The suggestion was that *UN*freeze would return ETIMEDOUT if the
>> filesystem had already unfrozen itself, I think.  That way you know that
>> the snapshot you just took is worthless, at least.
> 
> But why would the filesystem every unfreeze itself?  That defeats the
> whole point of freezing it.

I agree.  Was just trying to clarify the above point.

But there have been what, 12 submissions now, with the unfreeze timeout
in place so it's a persistent theme ;)

Perhaps a demonstration of just how easy (or not easy) it is to deadlock
a filesystem by freezing the root might be in order, at least.

And even if it is relatively easy, I still maintain that it is the
administrator's role to not inflict damage on the machine being
administered.  There are a lot of potentially dangerous tools at root's
disposal; why this particular one needs a nanny I'm still not quite sure.

-Eric
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/