On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 09:48:50AM +0100, Stefano Brivio wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Oct 2024 15:20:56 +1100
> David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Oct 28, 2024 at 11:00:40AM +0100, Stefano Brivio wrote:
> > > We open the log file with O_APPEND, but switch it off before seeking,
> > > and turn it back on afterwards.
> > > 
> > > We never seek when O_APPEND is on, so we don't actually need it, as
> > > its only function is to override the offset for writes so that they
> > > are always performed at the end regardless of the current offset
> > > (which is at the end anyway, for us).  
> > 
> > Sorry, this sounded fishy to me on the call, but I figured I was just
> > missing something.  But looking at this the reasoning doesn't make
> > sense to me.
> > 
> > We don't seek with O_APPEND, but we do write(), which is exactly where
> > it matters. AIUI the point of O_APPEND is that if you have multiple
> > processes writing to the same file, they won't clobber each others
> > writes because of a stale file pointer.
> 
> That's not the reason why I originally added it though: it was there
> because I thought I would lseek() to do the rotation and possibly end
> up with the cursor somewhere before the end. Then restart writing, and
> the write would happen in the middle of the file:

I don't entirely follow.  I see why you disable O_APPEND across the
rotation, but I'm not clear on why it's opened with O_APPEND in the
first place, if it's not for the typical logging reason.

> $ cat append.c
> #include <stdio.h>
> #include <unistd.h>
> #include <string.h>
> #include <fcntl.h>
> 
> int main(int argc, char **argv)
> {
> 	int flags = O_CREAT | O_TRUNC | O_WRONLY | ((argc == 3) ? O_APPEND : 0);
> 	int fd = open(argv[1], flags, S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR);
> 	char buf[BUFSIZ];
> 
> 	memset(buf, 'a', BUFSIZ);
> 	write(fd, buf, 10);
> 	lseek(fd, 1, SEEK_SET);
> 	memset(buf, 'b', BUFSIZ);
> 	write(fd, buf, 10);
> 	write(fd, (char *){ "\n" }, 1);
> 
> 	return 0;
> }
> $ gcc -o append{,.c}
> $ ./append test append
> $ cat test
> aaaaaaaaaabbbbbbbbbb
> $ ./append test
> $ cat test
> abbbbbbbbbb
> 
> > That's usually not
> > _necessary_ for us as such, but it's perhaps valuable since it reduces
> > the likelihood of data loss if somehow you do get two instances
> > logging to the same file.
> 
> The result will be completely unreadable anyway, so I don't think it
> matters for us.

Not necessarily.  It certainly can get garbled, but individual writes
of reasonable size - such as a single log line will generally complete
atomically.  With a text logging format, that's not ideal but often
pretty decipherable.  Particularly if each writer includes a prefix
identifying itself.

> > Of course the rotation process *can* clobber things (which is exactly
> > why I was always a bit sceptical of this "in place" rotation, not that
> > we really have other options).
> 
> Why would it clobber things? logfile_rotate_fallocate() and
> logfile_rotate_move() take care of cutting cleanly at a line boundary,
> and tests check that.

I mean that in the case that there are multiple writers, the rotation
breaks that "no data loss, and probably readable-ish" property of
O_APPEND.

-- 
David Gibson (he or they)	| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you, not the other way
				| around.
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson