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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Tue, 13 Mar 2018 18:11:13 +0100
From:   Reindl Harald <>
To:     Andreas Dilger <>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <>
Cc:     Lukas Czerner <>,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] e2scrub: create a script to scrub all ext*

Am 13.03.2018 um 18:08 schrieb Andreas Dilger:
> On Mar 13, 2018, at 10:36 AM, Darrick J. Wong <> wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 07:23:44AM +0100, Lukas Czerner wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 09:14:53AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
>>>> From: Darrick J. Wong <>
>>>> Create an e2scrub_all command to find all ext* filesystems
>>>> and run an online scrub against them all.
>>> Sorry for not bringing that up before, by why don't we have
>>> e2scrub -a
>>> instead of this ? Wouldn't it be better to have just one tool ?
>> I'd rather have two simple tools that each do one thing ("scrub this
>> ext4 lvm volume") ("find all ext4 lvm volumes and run scrub") than
>> combine them into one less cohesive tool.  There's precedence here with
>> fsck.$fstype and fsck, where the first one performs an offline check of a
>> single filesystem and the second one (if you fsck -A) finds all the
>> individual filesystems and feeds them through fsck.$fstype.  In the
>> longer term it probably makes sense to set up a fsscrub wrapper to
>> invoke the fs-specific scrub tools.
>> Though now that I think about that, e2scrub probably ought to take a
>> mount point and translate that into a lvm volume, which makes
>> e2scrub_all mostly a dumb iterator of /proc/mounts.
> Except that won't scrub offline volumes, nor will all mounted ext4
> filesystems be LVs that can be scrubbed, so I don't think that is
> an improvement

why is that at all limited to ext4 on top of LVM?

both layers should not need to know from each other - feels not that 
good for the long term having different paths of code depending on the 
underlying block layer (raw-disk, mdraid, lvm, lvm-on-mdraid...)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux - Powered by OpenVZ