linux-kernel - Re: [RFD] Incremental fsck

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: <23019.1199865859@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Date:	Wed, 09 Jan 2008 03:04:19 -0500
From:	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To:	Al Boldi <a1426z@...ab.com>
Cc:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFD] Incremental fsck

On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 07:40:12 +0300, Al Boldi said:

> But why wouldn't it be possible to do this on the current fs infrastructure, 
> using just a smart fsck, working incrementally on some sub-dir?

If you have /home/usera, /home/userb, and /home/userc, the vast majority of
fs screw-ups can't be detected by only looking at one sub-dir.  For example,
you can't tell definitively that all blocks referenced by an inode under
/home/usera are properly only allocated to one file until you *also* look at
the inodes under user[bc].  Heck, you can't even tell if the link count for
a file is correct unless you walk the entire filesystem - you can find a file
with a link count of 3 in the inode, and you find one reference under usera,
and a second under userb - you can't tell if the count is one too high or
not until you walk through userc and actually see (or fail to see) a third
directory entry referencing it.

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped