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  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:   Fri, 08 Jan 2021 11:37:07 +0900
From:   Daejun Park <>
To:     Andreas Dilger <>,
        Daejun Park <>,
        harshad shirwadkar <>
CC:     "" <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>
Subject: RE: Re: [PATCH] ext4: Remove expensive flush on fast commit

> > In the fast commit, it adds REQ_FUA and REQ_PREFLUSH on each fast commit
> > block when barrier is enabled. However, in recovery phase, ext4 compares
> > CRC value in the tail. So it is sufficient adds REQ_FUA and REQ_PREFLUSH
> > on the block that has tail.
> Does the tail block *always* contain a CRC, or is that dependent on
> or JBD2_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_CSUM_V3 being enabled?

In the fast commit, the tail block always contain a CRC.
> If one of those features is *required* before the FAST_COMMIT feature
> can be used, then this patch looks OK.  Otherwise, the CSUM feature
> should be checked before the FUA is skipped for non-tail blocks.

So, I think it is OK without checking other CSUM feature.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists