[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1259594866.13049.56.camel@maxim-laptop>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:27:46 +0200
From: Maxim Levitsky <maximlevitsky@...il.com>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Pierre Ossman <pierre@...man.eu>,
Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>,
Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
504391@...s.debian.org,
Wouter van Heyst <larstiq@...stiq.dyndns.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmc: add module parameter to set whether cards are
assumed removable
On Mon, 2009-11-30 at 13:51 +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Before we do suspend, pick few random sectors from the media, run that
> > through some hash function, thus creating some sort of watermark.
>
> Statistically speaking the chances are you'll catch zero sectors and
> lose. You'll also not detect the suspend, move to other box, use, put
> back error. That is one users make and we need to be at least vaguely
> robust against.
>
> Hence you need the fs checking here.
>
> Alan
I have to agree with you about that one.
An FS checking is really only solution.
Then I think such check can be added gradually to existing filesystems
(starting with fat), and allow these filesystems to persist across low
power states regardsless of CONFIG_$system_UNSAFE_RESUME
For fat, simple checksum of the 'fat' table will catch most attempts.
Also directory modification times can be compared, at least for root
directory.
Best regards,
Maxim Levitsky
--
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