linux-ext4 - Re: Data integrity built into the storage stack

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20090901133737.GA1852@ucw.cz>
Date:	Tue, 1 Sep 2009 15:37:37 +0200
From:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To:	jim owens <jowens@...com>
Cc:	"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
	Greg Freemyer <greg.freemyer@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Data integrity built into the storage stack

On Tue 2009-09-01 09:18:07, jim owens wrote:
> Pavel Machek wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>>> I do agree that we do have to be more prepared for collateral damage
>>> scenarios.  As we discussed at LS we have 4KB drives coming out that can
>>> invalidate previously acknowledged I/Os if it gets a subsequent write
>>> failure on a sector.  And there's also the issue of fractured writes
>>
>> Hmmm, future will be interesting.
>>
>> 'ext3 expects disks to behave like disks from 1995' (alarming).
>
> NO... stop saying "ext3".  All file systems expect that
> what the disk tell us is the "sector size" (now know by
> disk vendors as "block size") is "atomic".

Yep, but ext3 disables barriers by default. So it has more than
blocksize issue :-(.
							Pavel

-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
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