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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 20:15:54 -0400 From: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu> To: Andreas Dilger <adilger@....com> Cc: Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@...hat.com>, Christian Fischer <Christian.Fischer@...terngraphics.com>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: Enable asynchronous commits by default patch revoked? On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 05:43:36PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote: > Without transaction checksums waiting on all of the blocks together > is NOT safe. If the commit record is on disk, but the rest of the > transaction's blocks are not then during replay it may cause garbage > to be written from the journal into the filesystem metadata. Yes, I *said* that we can only wait on all of the blocks together with the commit record when doing journal checksums. Sorry if I didn't make that clear enough. That's the one optimization we using journal checksums buys us. Unfortunately it does not allow us to omit the barrier operation.... and have real-world testing experience that without the barrier, a power drop can cause significant filesystem corruption and potential data loss. Try using Chris Mason's torture-test workload with async-checksums without this patch; you will get data corruption if you try dropping power while his torture-test is running. I know you really don't like the barrier, but I'm afraid it's not safe to run without it, even with journal checksums. - Ted -- 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists