| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <170fa0d20703162106v47dc13e1u1ae5381576f372ed@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 23:06:52 -0500 From: "Mike Snitzer" <snitzer@...il.com> To: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: forced umount? I'm interested in understanding the state of Linux with regard to _really_ forcing a filesystem to unmount. There is a (stale) project at OSDL that has various implementations: http://developer.osdl.org/dev/fumount/ Its fairly clear that these efforts (e.g. badfs patches) haven't been given serious consideration for upstream inclusion. Do others see value in the ability to _reliably_ force a umount by having Linux discard all IOs, open files, dirty inode buffers, etc of a "bad" blockdevice? The goal is to not impact the availability or integrity of Linux while doing so. Is this forced umount work even considered worthwhile by the greater Linux community? Is anyone actively working on this? Mike - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists