[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101119155003.GA7145@infradead.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 10:50:03 -0500
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Mark Lord <kernel@...savvy.com>,
Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@...hat.com>,
Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de>,
Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
Josef Bacik <josef@...hat.com>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
sandeen@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] fs: Do not dispatch FITRIM through separate
super_operation
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 10:37:48AM -0500, Ted Ts'o wrote:
> I think the author of that slide deck was being a little hysterical.
> In nearly all of these cases, if the file system is comptently
> implemented (i.e., you don't do a trim on anything but a deleted file
> block, and _only_ when you know the deleted is committed, and only the
> filesystem --- not non-privileged users --- are allowed to use the
> TRIM command), there's no issue.
It's a huge issue for virtualization, where naive TRIM implementations
can expose data deleted in one VM to others. It's also a huge issues
for RAIDs as mentioned by you.
--
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