linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] ocfs2: sysfile interfaces for online file check

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: <20151218223701.GJ11072@wotan.suse.de>
Date:	Fri, 18 Dec 2015 14:37:01 -0800
From:	Mark Fasheh <mfasheh@...e.de>
To:	Gang He <ghe@...e.com>
Cc:	Junxiao Bi <junxiao.bi@...cle.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	ocfs2-devel@....oracle.com, rgoldwyn@...e.de,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] ocfs2: sysfile interfaces for online file check

On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 08:29:41PM -0700, Gang He wrote:
> Hi Mark and Junxiao,
> 
> 
> >>> 
> > On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 04:20:27PM +0800, Junxiao Bi wrote:
> >> Hi Gang,
> >> 
> >> On 11/03/2015 03:54 PM, Gang He wrote:
> >> > Hi Junxiao,
> >> > 
> >> > Thank for your reviewing.
> >> > Current design, we use a sysfile as a interface to check/fix a file (via 
> > pass a ino number).
> >> > But, this operation is manually triggered by user, instead of automatically 
> >  fix in the kernel.
> >> > Why?
> >> > 1) we should let users make this decision, since some users do not want to 
> > fix when encountering a file system corruption, maybe they want to keep the 
> > file system unchanged for a further investigation.
> >> If user don't want this, they should not use error=continue option, let
> >> fs go after a corruption is very dangerous.
> > 
> > Maybe we need another errors=XXX flag (maybe errors=fix)?
> > 
> > You both make good points, here's what I gather from the conversation:
> > 
> >  - Some customers would be sad if they have to manually fix corruptions.
> >    This takes effort on their part, and if the FS can handle it
> >    automatically, it should.
> > 
> >  - There are valid concerns that automatically fixing things is a change in
> >    behavior that might not be welcome, or worse might lead to unforseeable
> >    circumstances.
> > 
> >  - I will add that fixing things automatically implies checking them
> >    automatically which could introduce some performance impact depending on
> >    how much checking we're doing.
> > 
> > So if the user wants errors to be fixed automatically, they could mount with
> > errros=fix, and everyone else would have no change in behavior unless they
> > wanted to make use of the new feature.
> That is what I want to say, add a mount option to let users to decide. Here, I want to split "error=fix"
> mount option  task out from online file check feature, I think this part should be a independent feature.
> We can implement this feature after online file check is done, I want to split the feature into some more 
> detailed features, implement them one by one. Do you agree this point?

Yeah that's fine, I would have automatic checking turned off though until we
have a good plan in place for users who do / don't want this.
	--Mark

--
Mark Fasheh
--
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/