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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 08:39:24 -0500 From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> To: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...ibm.com> Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: Set barrier=0 when block device does not advertise flush support barrier=0 really means losemydata=1. The plan I discussed with Jens was to allow to disable the flush and fua semantics in the block layer, so we'll have one new tunable for that, which is documented to causes these issues. > picks the safe option by default. However, I'd prefer /proc/mounts not > misrepresent the status of flush support, to the best of ext4's knowledge. That's bullshit. The barrier option has traditionally meant that we sent barrier requests, and now means thatwe send flush+fua requests. There's no reason for a warning and option mislabling just because you got the most efficient implementation of 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists