synchronizing file system while hibernating

Bug #80997 reported by Andrew Frank
2
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
linux-source-2.6.20 (Ubuntu)
Invalid
Undecided
Unassigned

Bug Description

Binary package hint: acpi

on a dual boot system, it is possible to hibernate ubuntu and start windows. if there are parts of the disk both systems can write to, it is imperative that all files are written to disk before hibernating and reread after hibernation.

this seems not to be the case - i have lost a few files written to disk, then hibernating and writing zero files on the other OS (because the files were not found).

not tried to reproduce, but please check the code!

Revision history for this message
Matthew Garrett (mjg59) wrote :

Touching shared filesystems when the system is hibernated is effectively guaranteed to result in filesystem corruption - the kernel will not invalidate its filesystem cache, even if everything has been written to disk.

Changed in acpi:
status: Unconfirmed → Rejected
Revision history for this message
Andrew Frank (frank-geoinfo) wrote : Re: [Bug 80997] Re: synchronizing file system while hibernating

ok - will not try it again! thank you for the warning

but: why is the kernel not reading in the filesystem cache after
hibernation. startup after hibernation is not really fast, so a little
bit more wait time would not hurt and avoid the corruption?

thank you for the quick reply!

andrew

Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Touching shared filesystems when the system is hibernated is effectively
> guaranteed to result in filesystem corruption - the kernel will not
> invalidate its filesystem cache, even if everything has been written to
> disk.
>
> ** Changed in: acpi (Ubuntu)
> Sourcepackagename: acpi => linux-source-2.6.20
> Status: Unconfirmed => Rejected
>

--
ÐÏࡱá

Revision history for this message
Matthew Garrett (mjg59) wrote :

Because even if it did, the kernel isn't the only thing that may be caching files - imagine an application with an open file, for instance. There's no way to guarantee that things won't be damaged.

Revision history for this message
Andrew Frank (frank-geoinfo) wrote :

you are right ... thank you for the patience!
af

Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Because even if it did, the kernel isn't the only thing that may be
> caching files - imagine an application with an open file, for instance.
> There's no way to guarantee that things won't be damaged.
>

--
ÐÏࡱá

To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  
Everyone can see this information.

Other bug subscribers