linux-kernel - Re: [testcase] test your fs/storage stack (was Re: [patch] ext2/3: document conditions when reliable operation is possible)

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: <200909040244.54772.rob@landley.net>
Date:	Fri, 4 Sep 2009 02:44:53 -0500
From:	Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>
To:	jim owens <jowens@...com>
Cc:	Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@...hat.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	david@...g.hm, Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
	Florian Weimer <fweimer@....de>,
	Goswin von Brederlow <goswin-v-b@....de>,
	kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, mtk.manpages@...il.com,
	rdunlap@...otime.net, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, corbet@....net
Subject: Re: [testcase] test your fs/storage stack (was Re: [patch] ext2/3: document conditions when reliable operation is possible)

On Thursday 03 September 2009 09:14:43 jim owens wrote:
> Rob Landley wrote:
> > I think he understands he was clueless too, that's why he investigated
> > the failure and wrote it up for posterity.
> >
> >> And Ric said do not stigmatize whole classes of A) devices, B) raid,
> >> and C) filesystems with "Pavel says...".
> >
> > I don't care what "Pavel says", so you can leave the ad hominem at the
> > door, thanks.
>
> See, this is exactly the problem we have with all the proposed
> documentation.  The reader (you) did not get what the writer (me)
> was trying to say.  That does not say either of us was wrong in
> what we thought was meant, simply that we did not communicate.

That's why I've mostly stopped bothering with this thread.  I could respond to 
Ric Wheeler's latest (what does write barriers have to do with whether or not 
a multi-sector stripe is guaranteed to be atomically updated during a panic or 
power failure?) but there's just no point.

The LWN article on the topic is out, and incomplete as it is I expect it's the 
best documentation anybody will actually _read_.

Rob
-- 
Latency is more important than throughput. It's that simple. - Linus Torvalds
--
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/