linux-kernel - Re: block_device usage and incorrect block writes

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]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0701181131070.19740@yvahk01.tjqt.qr>
Date:	Thu, 18 Jan 2007 11:31:47 +0100 (MET)
From:	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>
To:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, KudOS <kudos@...ts.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: block_device usage and incorrect block writes



On Jan 18 2007 13:13, Jens Axboe wrote:
>
>noop doesn't guarentee that IO will be queued with the device in the
>order in which they are submitted, and it definitely doesn't guarentee
>that the device will process them in the order in which they are
>dispatched. noop being FIFO basically means that it will not sort
>requests. You can still have reordering if one request gets merged with
>another, for instance.

Would it make sense to have a fifo-iosched module that assumes write barriers
between every submission? (No, I am not related to that project.)


	-`J'
-- 
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/