linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/17] pramfs: documentation

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <AANLkTi=fF_hskZ7kDEby0Uga0eaU_stM9qs890mUpxWd@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 11 Jan 2011 16:42:57 +0100
From:	"Roberto A. Foglietta" <roberto.foglietta@...il.com>
To:	Marco Stornelli <marco.stornelli@...il.com>
Cc:	Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Embedded <linux-embedded@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Tim Bird <tim.bird@...sony.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/17] pramfs: documentation

2011/1/8 Marco Stornelli <marco.stornelli@...il.com>:
> On 07/01/2011 22:59, Tony Luck wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Marco Stornelli
>> <marco.stornelli@...il.com> wrote:
>>> constraint). About the errors: pramfs does not maintain file data in the
>>> page caches for normal file I/O, so no writeback, the read/write
>>> operation are done with direct io and they are always sync. The data are
>>> write protected in hw when the arch provide this facility (x86 does).
>>> Inode contains a checksum and when there are problems they are marked as
>>> bad. Superblock contains checksum and there is a redundant superblock.
>>
>> But you can still get pramfs inconsistencies if the system crashes at an
>> inopportune moment. E.g. when making files you write the new inode to
>> pramfs, and then you insert the entry into the directory. A crash between
>> these two operations leaves an allocated inode that doesn't appear in
>> any directory.  Without a fsck option, it will be hard to see that you have
>> this problem, and your only recovery option is to wipe *all* files by making
>> a new filesystem.
>
> Is it a problem if you lost some logs? However do you expect that fsck
> in this case will drop the inode?


IF there could be some inconsistencies in the file-system AND as long
as there is no way to fixup these inconsistencies than purging their
allocated space THEN I think the best approach would be clearing these
inconsistencies at the mount time and printing a WARNING message for
debug/stats purpose. Otherwise a user-space tool would be better
because it could be used in interactive mode, also.

Obviously the best would be to not have any inconsistencies at all.
However, in a real world, the thread-off between a journaling fs and a
simpler one in terms of code and memory usage could make acceptable
adopting a simpler fs than a journaled one. Kernel documentation
should inform clearly the user about pro/cons of adopting a simpler fs
especially about data loss conditions.

-RAF
--
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/