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:	Mon, 24 Aug 2009 20:15:54 -0400
From:	Theodore Tso <>
To:	Andreas Dilger <>
Cc:	Ric Wheeler <>,
	Christian Fischer <>,
Subject: Re: Enable asynchronous commits by default patch revoked?

On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 05:43:36PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> Without transaction checksums waiting on all of the blocks together
> is NOT safe.  If the commit record is on disk, but the rest of the
> transaction's blocks are not then during replay it may cause garbage
> to be written from the journal into the filesystem metadata.

Yes, I *said* that we can only wait on all of the blocks together with
the commit record when doing journal checksums.  Sorry if I didn't
make that clear enough.

That's the one optimization we using journal checksums buys us.
Unfortunately it does not allow us to omit the barrier
operation.... and have real-world testing experience that without the
barrier, a power drop can cause significant filesystem corruption and
potential data loss.

Try using Chris Mason's torture-test workload with async-checksums
without this patch; you will get data corruption if you try dropping
power while his torture-test is running.  I know you really don't like
the barrier, but I'm afraid it's not safe to run without it, even with
journal checksums.

						- Ted
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists