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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <4847CF07.1020904@hitachi.com> Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 20:33:27 +0900 From: Hidehiro Kawai <hidehiro.kawai.ez@...achi.com> To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> Cc: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, sct@...hat.com, adilger@....com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, jbacik@...hat.com, cmm@...ibm.com, yumiko.sugita.yf@...achi.com, satoshi.oshima.fk@...achi.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] jbd: strictly check for write errors on data buffers Jan Kara wrote: > On Wed 04-06-08 18:51:55, Theodore Tso wrote: > >>On Wed, Jun 04, 2008 at 02:58:48PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: >> >>>On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 17:22:02 -0400 >>>Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu> wrote: >>> >>>>On Wed, Jun 04, 2008 at 11:19:11AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: >>>But afaict this patch changes things so that if we get a write failure >>>in a data block we make the entire fs read-only. Which, as I said, is >>>often "dead box". >>> >>>This seems like a quite major policy change to me. My patch doesn't change the policy. JBD aborts the journal when it detects I/O error in file data since 2.6.11. Perhaps this patch: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=110483888632225 I just added missing error checkings. >>Agreed, and it's not appropriate. I could imagine that for some >>setups it is the right policy, but the kernel should not be setting >>policy like this. Maybe as a new tunable in the superblock, or maybe >>via a round-trip to userspace via a uevent, but certainly not as the >>new default behavior. > > Yes, I believe a tunable in superblock controlling how do we behave on > EIO error in data block would be the best solution. I agree. I understood that there is a case where we don't want to make the fs read-only when writing file data failed. OTOH there are people who want to make the fs read-only to avoid the damage from expanding. Introducing the tunable would be better. I'm going to send a patch to make this behavior tunable if some of you agree on this way. Thanks, -- Hidehiro Kawai Hitachi, Systems Development Laboratory Linux Technology Center -- 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists