| 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, 14 May 2012 12:33:03 +0200 From: Asdo <asdo@...ftmail.org> To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: ext4 barrier on SCSI vs SATA? On 05/14/12 11:02, Jan Kara wrote: >> However the flush was always available (I think), in fact databases >> would not corrupt (not even above ext4 nobarrier, above a raid5 >> without barriers) if fsync was called at proper times. > This is not true. Both cache flushes and barriers were implemented by > the same mechanism in older kernels. Thus if the device did not properly > propagate the barrier capability, then fsync did not provide any guarantees > in case of power failure (if there are volalile write caches in the storage > device). Oh! Thanks I had not realized this. So, if barrier IS provided by the underlying blockdevice but filesystem is nevertheless mounted as nobarrier (as an explicit option) would database flushes (fsync) for files on THAT filesystem work properly or not? Thanks for your insight -- 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