| 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: <493425DC.1010008@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 11:58:52 -0600 From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com> To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> CC: Harald Arnesen <skogtun.harald@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, tytso@....edu Subject: Re: [ext4] Documentation patch Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 05:46:56PM +0100, Harald Arnesen wrote: >> So when comparing with a metadata-only journalling filesystem, such >> - as ext3, use `mount -o data=writeback'. And you might as well use >> + as jfs or xfs, use `mount -o data=writeback'. And you might as well use > > data=ordered comes closest to what xfs does for quite a long time.. Agreed; that whole bit which mentions other filesystem comparisons should probably be stricken, unless it can be proven/demonstrated/substantiated that ext3 really does "offer higher data integrity guarantees than most" at this point. data=ordered ensures that stale data won't be exposed on a crash; xfs won't do this (it'd be a security bug) and I'd be surprised if jfs or reiserfs do either. And it probably *should* be mentioned that data=writeback bears this risk. And until ext3 turns on barriers by default, I don't think it's fair to talk too much about integrity guarantees. :) -Eric -- 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