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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Tue, 10 Dec 2013 10:08:04 -0800
From:	Jitesh Shah <jitesh.1337@...il.com>
To:	"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
Cc:	linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Reproducible block structure

.. inline ..

> > Now, if the script is ran in the SAME way for all 5 HDDs, is it
> > guaranteed that these HDDs will be same at the block level too? (i.e.
> > block allocation/deallocation will follow the same pattern). Assume
> > single-core system with only one process modifying the HDD in
> > predetermined order.
>
> Nope, there's no way to guarantee this.

Thanks. I was quite sure of this, but still thought it was a good idea
to ask in case I am missing an obscure detail.

> > Why do I ask -> I am tinkering with the idea of block level
> > verification of images. If the above guarantees can be provided, I can
> > easily hash the raw HDD for verification purposes.
>
> If you want to do a block level verification of the image, why not
> also do block level update of the image as well?

Yep. Thats the plan B. We had a bunch of utilities using file-based
approaches. I was trying to find a way to move them one-by-one. Looks
like moving to a block-based approach altogether is a more worthwhile
investment of time.

Thanks a lot for your responses Carlos and Ted.

Jitesh
--
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