linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] fs: Do not dispatch FITRIM through separate super

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: <36056.1290366424@localhost>
Date:	Sun, 21 Nov 2010 14:07:04 -0500
From:	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To:	Mark Lord <kernel@...savvy.com>
Cc:	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
	James Bottomley <james.bottomley@...e.de>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
	Josef Bacik <josef@...hat.com>,
	Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>, tytso <tytso@....edu>,
	linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] fs: Do not dispatch FITRIM through separate super_operation

On Fri, 19 Nov 2010 09:53:52 EST, Mark Lord said:
> On 10-11-19 09:40 AM, Chris Mason wrote:
> >
> > We've been told that online and constant trimming is the default in
> > windows7.   The ssds are most likely to just start ignoring the trims
> > they can't service efficiently.
> 
> Win7 collects multiple TRIM ranges over time and batches them as single TRIMs
> (as reported to me by an SSD vendor who traced it with a SATA analyzer,
>   and who also apparently has "inside info").

What should happen if we have (for instance) a "collect 64 trims at a time" policy,
and the system crashes at trim number 47? (Probably not an issue if you're
doing non-deterministic trim, but is an exposure if you're relying on deterministic
trim for security reasons)

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped