From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 1 00:08:33 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D49716A4CE for ; Tue, 1 Mar 2005 00:08:33 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtp809.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp809.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.199]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6AB7443D64 for ; Tue, 1 Mar 2005 00:08:32 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from Thomas.Sparrevohn@btinternet.com) Received: from unknown (HELO w2fzz0vc01.aah-go-on.com) (thomas.sparrevohn@hg1.btinternet.com@81.157.127.252 with plain) by smtp809.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 1 Mar 2005 00:08:31 -0000 From: Thomas Sparrevohn To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 00:08:20 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.2 References: <20050227213032.CCB973700F@arioch.imrryr.org> <42226293.7040603@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <42226293.7040603@FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-u" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200503010008.20675.Thomas.Sparrevohn@btinternet.com> Subject: Re: RFC: backporting GEOM to the 4.x branch X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: Thomas.Sparrevohn@btinternet.com List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 00:08:33 -0000 On Monday 28 February 2005 00:15, Maxim Sobolev wrote: > Roland Dowdeswell wrote: > > [ cc'ing tech-security@NetBSD.org, because there has been talk > > of GBDE there in the past.] > > So what? If the write fails in the middle, reading sector will just > produce garbage. I don't think that it's different from plain old HDD > which has been powered down in the middle of doing disk write. Disk > encryption layer is definitely not the level at which journaling should > be implemented. It's task of file system to do this. The task of > encryption layer is merely to inform the file system when transaction > (i.e. both of those two writes in this case) have been completed > successfully, so that FS can adjust its journal accordingly. > > -Maxim I could be wrong but I would assume that if it is correctly handled within softupdates there should be no need for journalling - e.g. If both transactions are not completed the writes are ignored