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  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:   Tue, 07 Aug 2018 01:42:44 +0000
Subject: [Bug 200739] I/O error on read-ahead inode blocks does not get
 detected or reported

Theodore Tso ( changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
                 CC|                            |

--- Comment #6 from Theodore Tso ( ---
Does this actually cause an user-visible problem?   If we do readahead for an
inode table block never gets used by the user, and that block is never used
(perhaps because no inodes have been written using that indoe table block), why
should we mark the file system as corrupted?   

Especially given that with modern block devices, when we *do* write to the
inode table block, it will probably use redirect the failed sector to a spare
block replacement pool automatically, at which point subsequent reads to that
inode table block will be *fine*.

So prematurely deciding that just because an speculative, readahead access to a
sector returns a media error, is grounds to declare the file system corrupted
(which could force a reboot if errors=panic is set), seems to be a massive

Why do you think we should signal an error in this case?

You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching the assignee of the bug.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists