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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Fri, 16 Mar 2007 23:06:52 -0500
From:	"Mike Snitzer" <snitzer@...il.com>
To:	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: forced umount?

I'm interested in understanding the state of Linux with regard to
_really_ forcing a filesystem to unmount.

There is a (stale) project at OSDL that has various implementations:
http://developer.osdl.org/dev/fumount/

Its fairly clear that these efforts (e.g. badfs patches) haven't been
given serious consideration for upstream inclusion.  Do others see
value in the ability to _reliably_ force a umount by having Linux
discard all IOs, open files, dirty inode buffers, etc of a "bad"
blockdevice?  The goal is to not impact the availability or integrity
of Linux while doing so.

Is this forced umount work even considered worthwhile by the greater
Linux community?  Is anyone actively working on this?

Mike
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ