linux-kernel - Re: LogFS merge

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.10.0805041809370.3318@apollo.tec.linutronix.de>
Date:	Sun, 4 May 2008 18:20:23 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Jörn Engel <joern@...fs.org>
cc:	matthieu castet <castet.matthieu@...e.fr>,
	Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>,
	linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: LogFS merge

On Sat, 3 May 2008, Jörn Engel wrote:
> 1.
> Ubifs takes the easy approach and uses ubi for wear leveling, bad block
> handling, ets.  Saves a ton of work, gives quick results and is limited
> by ubi scan time, which is O(n).

Which is easy enough to fix.

> Logfs ignores ubi and does wear leveling, bad block handling, etc.
> itself.  Bad block handling in particular is not too robust yet.  If you
> expect blocks to rot away after mkfs time, logfs is a bad choice.

It's a matter of fact that especially on NAND flash blocks become bad
over time, i.e. after mkfs. So that's a pretty crucial feature which
needs to be complete and robust before it's declared to be usable on
such devices.

Thanks,
	tglx