linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH-v2 0/5] add support for a lazytime mount option

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

Date:	Mon, 24 Nov 2014 17:11:45 -0500
From:	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
To:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Cc:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
	xfs@....sgi.com, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH-v2 0/5] add support for a lazytime mount option

On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 06:57:27AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> If we want to be paranoid, we handle i_version updates non-lazily; I
> can see arguments in favor of that.
> 
> Ext4 only enables MS_I_VERSION if the user asks for it explicitly, so
> it wouldn't cause me any problems.  However, xfs and btrfs enables it
> by default, so that means xfs and btrfs wouldn't see the benefits of
> lazytime (if you're going to have to push I_VERSION to disk, you might
> as well update the [acm]time while you're at it).  I've always thought
> that we *should* do is to only enable it if nfsv4 is serving the file
> system, and not otherwise, though, which would also give us
> consistency across all the file systems.

I guess you need to worry about the case where you shutdown nfsd, modify
a file, then restart nfsd--you don't want a client to miss the
modification in that case.

--b.
--
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