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  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:   Sun, 7 Apr 2019 16:13:32 -0500
From:   Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...deen.net>
To:     "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>
Cc:     Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
        xfs <linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bootfs: simple bootloader filesystem

On 4/7/19 3:13 PM, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2019 at 01:10:55PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> On 4/6/19 6:27 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 09:55:19PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
>>>>
>>>> When Ted is done laughing, I really would like to consider something
>>>> like this to solve the problem of grub-style bootloaders requiring a
>>>> lease on the blocks underneath a file with a term exceeding that of the
>>>> running kernel.
>>>>
>>>> We can probably skip the harsh synchronous writes in favor of fsync on
>>>> close, but we would need to keep the critical component of checkpointing
>>>> the journal on fsync and syncfs.
>>>
>>> At least for ext4, we don't need to add anything new, since FIFREEZE
>>> force a journal checkpoint.  So we could try to get a patch into grub
>>> which causes update_grub to open each kernel that it finds, and calls
>>> fsync(2) on it, and then for all file systems where it finds a kernel,
>>> it can call FIFREEZE and FITHAW on it, and that would be that.
>>
>> Certain operating systems have hacked this in.  My concern would be when
>> /boot is on / ... calling FIFREEZE on the root fs would most likely be
>> a bad thing.  Certain operating systems avoid calling FIFREEZE for
>> /boot-on-root.  ;)
>>
>> Doing it for a standalone /boot seems like a reasonable (if hacky)
>> workaround as long as we lack a more targeted quiesce interface...
> 
> The other problem we noticed is that neither the grub scripts nor the
> rpm package scripts bother to call fsync on the files they write (or
> sync after they're done to mop up after everyone else), so I figured as
> long as I'm ("jokingly") working around it all in kernel space, why not
> just go all the way? :P
> 
> Ok, I'll go work on an ioctl or something.


FWIW, I didn't mean that I didn't like bootfs! I kind of like bootfs!

-Eric

Powered by blists - more mailing lists