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:	Tue, 01 Jun 2010 13:27:56 +0000
From:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de>
To:	Christof Schmitt <christof.schmitt@...ibm.com>
Cc:	Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@...asas.com>,
	"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
	linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: Wrong DIF guard tag on ext2 write

On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 12:30 +0200, Christof Schmitt wrote:
> What is the best strategy to continue with the invalid guard tags on
> write requests? Should this be fixed in the filesystems?

For write requests, as long as the page dirty bit is still set, it's
safe to drop the request, since it's already going to be repeated.  What
we probably want is an error code we can return that the layer that sees
both the request and the page flags can make the call.

> Another idea would be to pass invalid guard tags on write requests
> down to the hardware, expect an "invalid guard tag" error and report
> it to the block layer where a new checksum is generated and the
> request is issued again. Basically implement a retry through the whole
> I/O stack. But this also sounds complicated.

No, no ... as long as the guard tag is wrong because the fs changed the
page, the write request for the updated page will already be queued or
in-flight, so there's no need to retry.  We still have to pass checksum
failures on in case the data changed because of some HW (or SW) cockup.
The check for this is page dirty.  If we get a checksum error back and
the page is still clean, we know nothing in the OS changed it, therefore
it's a real bit flip error.

James


--
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