linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] block/io bits for 2.6.35-rc

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: <AANLkTimus1Ajk-6HyDtZBmsYwQjkAf3zW-dvxNJlSlGw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 10 Jun 2010 08:55:44 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Jens Axboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com>
Cc:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] block/io bits for 2.6.35-rc

On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 6:44 AM, Jens Axboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com> wrote:
>
> - A set of patches fixing the WB_SYNC_NONE writeback from Christoph. So
>  we should finally have both functional and working WB_SYNC_NONE from
>  umount context.

I _really_ think this is too late, considering how broken it has been.
We already reverted the WB_SYNC_NONE things exactly because it didn't
work, didn't we? I'm going to be off-line in two days, and this part
of the pull request really makes me nervous, if only simply because of
the history of it all (ie it's always been broken, why shouldn't it be
broken now?).

IOW, that's a lot of scary changes, that have historically not been
safe or sufficiently tested, and have caused problems for various
filesystems. Convince me why they should suddenly be ok to merge?

                     Linus
--
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/