linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 0/4] (RESEND) ext3[34] barrier changes

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:	Wed, 21 May 2008 08:32:55 -0400
From:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
To:	Pavel Machek <pavel@...e.cz>
Cc:	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] (RESEND) ext3[34] barrier changes

On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 01:22:25PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> 
> Ok, Andrew, is this enough to get barrier patch applied and stop
> corrupting data in default config, or do you want some more testing?

It is for me; I think we have to enable barriers for ext3/4, and then
work to improve the overhead in ext4/jbd2.  It's probably true that
the vast majority of systems don't run under conditions similar to
what Chris used to demonstrate the problem, but the default has to be
filesystem safety.  People who are sure they are extremely unlikely to
run into this problem can turn barriers off (and I suspect they won't
see that much difference in the most common workloads anyway).

    	      		    	     - Ted
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html