| 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: <4B786898.8030309@zytor.com> Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 13:18:16 -0800 From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> To: Asdo <asdo@...ftmail.org> CC: Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@...idpixels.com>, Michael Evans <mjevans1983@...il.com>, linux-raid@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: Linux mdadm superblock question. On 02/14/2010 12:25 PM, Asdo wrote: > I don't understand... > In a system we have, the root filesystem on a raid-6 which is on second > (and last) partitions of many disks. > It always assembled correctly, it never tried to assemble the whole device. > (on the first partition there is a raid1 with boot) > So what's the problem exactly with not marking the beginning? In Fedora 12, for example, Dracut tries to make the distinction between whole RAID device and a partition device, and utterly fails -- often resulting in data loss. With a pointer to the beginning this would have been a trivial thing to detect. IMO it would make sense to support autoassemble for 1.0 superblocks, and making them the default. The purpose would be to get everyone off 0.9. However, *any* default is better than 1.1. -hpa -- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf. -- 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