linux-kernel - Re: Ext4 and the "30 second window of death"

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

Date:	Thu, 2 Apr 2009 12:37:31 +0100
From:	Sitsofe Wheeler <sitsofe@...oo.com>
To:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
	"Andreas T.Auer" <andreas.t.auer_lkml_73537@...us.ath.cx>,
	Alberto Gonzalez <info@...bu.es>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Ext4 and the "30 second window of death"

On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 01:35:21PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 04:12:21PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 06:20:50AM +0100, Sitsofe Wheeler wrote:
> > 
> > > Just out of curiosity, when laptop mode is happening is there a
> > > guarantee that writes to other files won't be reordered to before the
> > > fsync? 
> > 
> > laptop-mode does two things - tweak the dirty page semantics slightly 
> > (not in an interestingly relevant way) and call sys_sync() a few seconds 
> > after something hits disk rather than cache. In contrast to Ted's 
> > suggestion that laptop-mode reduces data integrity, it actually enhances 
> > it by opportunistically ensuring that data hits disk. It's the 
> > lengthening of the commit intervals that usually accompanies it that 
> > increases the risk of data loss.
> 
> It *can* reduce data integrity; it really depends on how it's tuned
> and what scenario you're talking about.  To the extent that it uses
> sys_sync(), it could help in some cases as well, since filesystems
> that do delayed allocation will wake up when the commit interval
> fires, and then force out all writes to the disk, yes.  But before the
> commit interval, there is an increased risk of data loss --- which the
> user requested.

That's fair enough and always seemed to be part of the bargain (let the
disk spin down for longer but risk losing 30 seconds of non-synced
recent data in a crash). The result shouldn't be corruption though.

> The other subtlety comes if we add fsync() suppression to laptop mode
> --- which is something that Bart Samwel is very interested in doing
> and I talked to him at FOSDEM about this.  As Jeff Garzik recently
> pointed out, however, if we let the system reorder writes across
> fsync() boundaries, or if we combine two writes to the same block
> separated by an fsync(), and the system crashes in the middle of
> pushing all of these blocks out to the disk, we can end up trashing
> the consistency guarantees of a database such as mysql or postgres.
> It's a good point, but it only applies if we add fsync() suppression
> to laptop mode --- which we haven't done yet.

eek.

If this goes in it needs to come with scary warnings so a distro doesn't
enable it by default (think of all those sqlite database that are
springing up). I know my system is crummy, all of this is only concerned
with if the system crashes uncontrollably (which it shouldn't do) and I
don't do things that would make it safer (like mount with sync) because
I like the speed but there's a risk limit. I don't want to increase my
chances of corruption (as opposed to "just" loss of non recent data) to
be too high...

-- 
Sitsofe | http://sucs.org/~sits/
--
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/