I slept over it and I thought about a bit more, but I think it just starts
to get interresting, so I hope your co-workers had a chance to snatch that
chainsaw away. :-)
On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> There are cases where you absolutely _have_ to rely on this documented
> UNIX behaviour. One example is using a log-file (yes, a _file_, not a
> socket or a pipe) that you explicitly opened with O_APPEND, just so that
> you can guarantee _atomic_ writes that do not get lost or partially
> re-ordered in your log.
> And yes, these logging programs are mission-critical, and they do have
> signals going on, and they rely on well-defined and documented interfaces
> that say that doing a write() to a filesystem is _not_ going to return in
> the middle just because a signal came in.
If these programs are so mission-critical, they better do some error
checking. Your atomic write will fail on a full disk and if the
information is that important, the program has to handle that.
> These programs know what they are doing. They are explicitly _not_ using
> "stdio" to write the log-file, exactly because they cannot afford to have
> the write broken up into many parts (and they do not want to have it
> buffered either, since getting the logging out in a timely fashion can be
> The only, and the _portable_ way to do this under UNIX is to create one
> single buffer, and write it out with one single write() call. Anything
> else is likely to cause the file to be interspersed by random
> log-fragments, instead of being a nice consecutive list of full log
I looked around a bit and it doesn't look that portable. UNIX systems seem
to have this behaviour, but not all POSIX systems. Letting multiple
programs log to the same file is insane (there must be a reason why syslog
was invented). Signals are your least worry, that's easy to deal with:
sigprocmask(SIG_SETMASK, &s, &os);
sigprocmask(SIG_SETMASK, &os, NULL);
But that doesn't deal with an almost full disk.
> If people cannot find this in SuS, then I simply don't _care_. I care
> about not having a crap OS, and I also care about not having to repeat
> myself and give a million examples of why the current behaviour is
> _required_, and why we're not getting rid of it.
I'm not asking for removing for this, I simply don't agree with the
reason. I still consider any program relying on this behaviour buggy. Your
"atomic" write is an illusion, the os can certainly try, but in the end
it's the applications responsibility to get this right.
I know that we can't remove this behaviour, but the only reason is to
keep buggy programs working and let them instead fail in other more subtle
> [ Did profanity help explain the situation?
Not really. :) I'm not that easily impressed.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 07 2002 - 22:00:18 EST