linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 2/2] jbd: fix fsync() tid wraparound bug

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20110502182945.GG2819@thunk.org>
Date:	Mon, 2 May 2011 14:29:45 -0400
From:	Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc:	Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
	Martin_Zielinski@...fee.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] jbd: fix fsync() tid wraparound bug

On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 05:07:58PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
>   The patch looks OK in any case. I'll take it in my tree.
Great, thanks.

> It would take
> about 24 days of constant 1000 trans/s load to trigger this. That's a quite
> heavy load but not so unrealistic with today's HW.

True; but one of the reason why I'm not sure I believe that is this
bug is showing up on some Android devices, where (a) 1000 trans/second
*is* a not just a huge load, but almost impossible to believe, and (b)
if we really are doing 2**31 commits, we would be wearing out the
flash storage being used on the Android devices!  (And we're seeing a
handful of failures every week from the testers who participate in a
kerneloops-like reporting system.)

So while I would very much like to believe that it's caused by a tid
wrap, I'm worried there is another bug hiding here....

    		      	 	     	    - Ted
--
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