linux-ext4 - Re: raid is dangerous but that's secret (was Re: [patch] ext2/3: document conditions when reliable operation is possible)

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]

Message-ID: <4807377b0908311049id9a2167r937bc8447c2b3546@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 31 Aug 2009 10:49:28 -0700
From:	Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...il.com>
To:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>, Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@...hat.com>,
	Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>, Florian Weimer <fweimer@....de>,
	Goswin von Brederlow <goswin-v-b@....de>,
	kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, mtk.manpages@...il.com,
	rdunlap@...otime.net, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, corbet@....net
Subject: Re: raid is dangerous but that's secret (was Re: [patch] ext2/3: 
	document conditions when reliable operation is possible)

On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 8:20 AM, Theodore Tso<tytso@....edu> wrote:
> So we *do* have the warning light; the problem is that just as some
> people may not realize that "check brakes" means, "YOU COULD DIE",
> some people may not realize that "hard drive failure; RAID array
> degraded" could mean, "YOU COULD LOSE DATA".
>
> Fortunately, for software RAID, this is easily solved; if you are so
> concerned, why don't you submit a patch to mdadm adjusting the e-mail
> sent to the system administrator when the array is in a degraded
> state, such that it states, "YOU COULD LOSE DATA".  I would gently
> suggest to you this would be ***far*** more effective that a patch to
> kernel documentation.

In the case of a degraded array, could the kernel be more proactive
(or maybe even mdadm) and have the filesystem remount itself withOUT
journalling enabled?  This seems on the surface to be possible, but I
don't know the internal particulars that might prevent/allow it.
--
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