Re: [PATCH]: grub: Fix ofdisk disk cache corruption.

[phcoder <phcoder@gmail.com>]

David Miller wrote:
> From: phcoder <phcoder@gmail.com>
> Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 12:44:10 +0200
> 
>> David Miller wrote:
>>> From: Pavel Roskin <proski@gnu.org>
>>> Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 02:29:15 -0400
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 2009-04-11 at 01:08 -0700, David Miller wrote:
>>> I think fixing disk cache corruption is more important than
>>> arguing over the distribution properties of the hash function
>>> I have choosen.
>>>
>> Yes, but weak hash has exactly the same problem, just on other systems
> 
> Nobody has even shown that the hash is actually weak or
> not effective in any particular case, theoretical or otherwise.
> 
> That's why it frustrates me that we're discussing this at all.
> 
> "That hash might not be good, only 3 bits of entropy" meanwhile
> we have a disk cache corrupt bug still unfixed.
> 
> Can't we bicker about these kinds of issues after the bug is
> fixed?  And also, after some proof is given that the hash
> matters at all.
> 
> Priorities are definitely wrong here.
> 
>>>> If you can save the device names, then there is no point in using
>>>> hashes.  You can use (long)devpath.
>>> Sure we need the hash, to find path entries we've saved beforehand.
>> You can maintain a table of devpathes in cache and use the index in
>> this table as id. This way is the safest
> 
> Ummm, that's essentially what my code does, except that the "index"
> is the address of the cached path entry itself.
Sorry I totally misread your code. Now it's fine

-- 

Regards
Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko