linux-kernel - Re: POSIX violation by writeback error

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:   Tue, 4 Sep 2018 18:23:48 +0200
From:   Rogier Wolff <R.E.Wolff@...Wizard.nl>
To:     "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
Cc:     Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>,
        焦晓冬 <milestonejxd@...il.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: POSIX violation by writeback error

On Tue, Sep 04, 2018 at 12:12:03PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:

> 
> Well, I think the point was that in the above examples you'd prefer that
> the read just fail--no need to keep the data.  A bit marking the file
> (or even the entire filesystem) unreadable would satisfy posix, I guess.
> Whether that's practical, I don't know.

When you would do it like that (mark the whole filesystem as "in
error") things go from bad to worse even faster. The Linux kernel 
tries to keep the system up even in the face of errors. 

With that suggestion, having one application run into a writeback
error would effectively crash the whole system because the filesystem
may be the root filesystem and stuff like "sshd" that you need to
diagnose the problem needs to be read from the disk.... 

	Roger. 

-- 
** R.E.Wolff@...Wizard.nl ** http://www.BitWizard.nl/ ** +31-15-2600998 **
**    Delftechpark 26 2628 XH  Delft, The Netherlands. KVK: 27239233    **
*-- BitWizard writes Linux device drivers for any device you may have! --*
The plan was simple, like my brother-in-law Phil. But unlike
Phil, this plan just might work.