linux-kernel - Re: [Nbd] [RESEND][PATCH 0/5] nbd improvements

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]

Date:   Thu, 15 Sep 2016 04:38:07 -0700
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:     Wouter Verhelst <w@...r.be>
Cc:     Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com>, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        mpa@...gutronix.de, kernel-team@...com,
        nbd-general@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Nbd] [RESEND][PATCH 0/5] nbd improvements

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 12:49:35PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> A while back, we spent quite some time defining the semantics of the
> various commands in the face of the NBD_CMD_FLUSH and NBD_CMD_FLAG_FUA
> write barriers. At the time, we decided that it would be unreasonable
> to expect servers to make these write barriers effective across
> different connections.

Do you have a nbd protocol specification?  treating a flush or fua
as any sort of barrier is incredibly stupid.  Is it really documented
that way, and if yes, why?