linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 0/4] (RESEND) ext3[34] barrier changes

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 21 May 2008 00:44:17 +0100
From:	Jamie Lokier <jamie@...reable.org>
To:	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] (RESEND) ext3[34] barrier changes

Chris Mason wrote:
> write log blocks
> flush #1
> write commit block
> flush #2
> write metadata blocks
> 
> I'd agree with Ted, there's a fairly small chance of things get reordered 
> around flush #1.

Except when it crosses an MD disk boundary.  Then it's really likely.

We could also ask if there's _any_ possibility, when they are a merged
single I/O, of them not getting written in the expected order?
What about when FUA is set, does that imply any order?

But it's all moot: Checksumming is the way forward here, no doubt.
Checksumming makes the multi-sector write "atomic or corrupt".  That's
the same expectation as a commit sector provides by itself, but
generalised to the whole journal entry.

-- Jamie
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html