linux-kernel - Re: raid is dangerous but that's secret (was Re: [patch] ext2/3:

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Tue, 1 Sep 2009 18:36:22 +1000 (EST)
From:	"NeilBrown" <neilb@...e.de>
To:	"George Spelvin" <linux@...izon.com>
Cc:	david@...g.hm, pavel@....cz, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux@...izon.com
Subject: Re: raid is dangerous but that's secret (was Re: [patch] ext2/3:

On Tue, September 1, 2009 10:56 am, George Spelvin wrote:
> The fact that the ZFS decelopers observed drives writing the data to the
> wrong location emphasizes the importance of keeping the checksum with
> the pointer.  An embedded checksum, no matter how good, can't tell you if
> the data is stale; you need a way to distinguish versions in the pointer.

I would disagree with that.
If the embedded checksum is a function of both the data and the address
of the data (in whatever address space seems most appropriate) then it can
still verify that the data found with the checksum is the data that was
expected.
And storing the checksum with the data (where it is practical) means
index blocks can be more dense so on average fewer accesses to storage
are needed.

NeilBrown

--
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/