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  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]
Date:	Sun, 4 Apr 2010 13:39:12 -0400
To:	Pavel Machek <>
Cc:	Ric Wheeler <>,
	Krzysztof Halasa <>,
	Christoph Hellwig <>, Mark Lord <>,
	Michael Tokarev <>,,
	NeilBrown <>, Rob Landley <>,
	Florian Weimer <>,
	Goswin von Brederlow <>,
	kernel list <>,
	Andrew Morton <>,,,,,
Subject: Re: fsck more often when powerfail is detected (was Re: wishful
 thinking about atomic, multi-sector or full MD stripe width, writes in

On Sun, Apr 04, 2010 at 03:47:29PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Yes, but ext3 does not enable barriers by default (the patch has been
> > submitted but akpm has balked because he doesn't like the performance
> > degredation and doesn't believe that Chris Mason's "workload of doom"
> > is a common case).  Note though that it is possible for dirty blocks
> > to remain in the track buffer for *minutes* without being written to
> > spinning rust platters without a barrier.
> So we do wrong thing by default. Another reason to do fsck more often
> when powerfails are present?

Or migrate to ext4, which does use barriers by defaults, as well as
journal-level checksumming.  :-)

As far as changing the default to enable barriers for ext3, you'll
need to talk to akpm about that; he's the one who has been against it
in the past.

					- Ted
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists