Linux Btrfs filesystem development
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz>
To: waxhead <waxhead@dirtcellar.net>
Cc: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@suse.de>,
	David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>,
	Linux BTRFS Mailinglist <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>,
	Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>, Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
	David Gstir <david@sigma-star.at>,
	Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@suse.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/13] Add support for other checksums
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2019 11:30:58 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190604093058.GW15290@twin.jikos.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <78fb639b-3f2d-7cb5-77b7-fee7339a0449@dirtcellar.net>

On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 09:56:06PM +0200, waxhead wrote:
> Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
> > This patchset add support for adding new checksum types in BTRFS.
> > 
> > Currently BTRFS only supports CRC32C as data and metadata checksum, which is
> > good if you only want to detect errors due to data corruption in hardware.
> > 
> > But CRC32C isn't able cover other use-cases like de-duplication or
> > cryptographically save data integrity guarantees.
> > 
> > The following properties made SHA-256 interesting for these use-cases:
> > - Still considered cryptographically sound
> > - Reasonably well understood by the security industry
> > - Result fits into the 32Byte/256Bit we have for the checksum in the on-disk
> >    format
> > - Small enough collision space to make it feasible for data de-duplication
> > - Fast enough to calculate and offloadable to crypto hardware via the kernel's
> >    crypto_shash framework.
> > 
> > The patchset also provides mechanisms for plumbing in different hash
> > algorithms relatively easy.
> > 
> 
> Howdy , being just a regular user I am in fact a bit concerned about 
> what happens to my delicious (it's butter after all) filesystems if I 
> happen to move disks between servers. Let's say server A has a 
> filesystem that support checksum type_1 and type_2 while server B only 
> supports type_1.
> 
> If the filesystem only has checksum of type_2 stored I would assume that 
> server B won't be able to read the data.
> 
> Ignoring checksums will kind of make BTRFS pointless, but I think this 
> is a good reason to consider adding a 'ignore-checksum' mount option - 
> at least it could make the data readable (RO) in a pinch.

That's a good idea. The availability of checksum modules is
unpredictable so we should provide some way to access the filesystem.

> ....actually since you could always fall back to the original crc32c 
> then perhaps RO might not even be needed at all ?!

The checksum type is per-filesystem, so write support cannot be enabled.
Theoretically, switching checksum should be possible with scrub that
will switch that on-the fly, but this needs to be tought out due the
intermediate state.

      parent reply	other threads:[~2019-06-04  9:30 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-06-03 14:58 [PATCH v4 00/13] Add support for other checksums Johannes Thumshirn
2019-06-03 14:58 ` [PATCH v4 01/13] btrfs: use btrfs_csum_data() instead of directly calling crc32c Johannes Thumshirn
2019-06-03 14:58 ` [PATCH v4 02/13] btrfs: resurrect btrfs_crc32c() Johannes Thumshirn
2019-06-03 14:58 ` [PATCH v4 03/13] btrfs: use btrfs_crc32c{,_final}() in for free space cache Johannes Thumshirn
2019-06-03 14:58 ` [PATCH v4 04/13] btrfs: don't assume ordered sums to be 4 bytes Johannes Thumshirn
2019-06-03 14:58 ` [PATCH v4 05/13] btrfs: dont assume compressed_bio " Johannes Thumshirn
2019-06-03 14:58 ` [PATCH v4 06/13] btrfs: format checksums according to type for printing Johannes Thumshirn
2019-06-03 16:13   ` David Sterba
2019-06-03 14:58 ` [PATCH v4 07/13] btrfs: add common checksum type validation Johannes Thumshirn
2019-06-03 14:58 ` [PATCH v4 08/13] btrfs: check for supported superblock checksum type before checksum validation Johannes Thumshirn
2019-06-03 14:58 ` [PATCH v4 09/13] btrfs: Simplify btrfs_check_super_csum() and get rid of size assumptions Johannes Thumshirn
2019-06-03 14:58 ` [PATCH v4 10/13] btrfs: add boilerplate code for directly including the crypto framework Johannes Thumshirn
2019-06-03 16:42   ` David Sterba
2019-06-03 14:58 ` [PATCH v4 11/13] btrfs: directly call into crypto framework for checsumming Johannes Thumshirn
2019-06-03 16:50   ` David Sterba
2019-06-03 14:58 ` [PATCH v4 12/13] btrfs: remove assumption about csum type form btrfs_print_data_csum_error() Johannes Thumshirn
2019-06-03 14:58 ` [PATCH v4 13/13] btrfs: add sha256 as another checksum algorithm Johannes Thumshirn
2019-06-03 18:30 ` [PATCH v4 00/13] Add support for other checksums David Sterba
2019-06-03 19:27   ` John Dorminy
2019-06-04  7:37   ` Johannes Thumshirn
2019-06-04  9:15     ` David Sterba
2019-06-04  9:25     ` David Sterba
2019-06-03 19:56 ` waxhead
2019-06-04  7:41   ` Johannes Thumshirn
2019-06-04  9:30   ` David Sterba [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20190604093058.GW15290@twin.jikos.cz \
    --to=dsterba@suse.cz \
    --cc=clm@fb.com \
    --cc=david@sigma-star.at \
    --cc=dsterba@suse.com \
    --cc=jthumshirn@suse.de \
    --cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=nborisov@suse.com \
    --cc=richard@nod.at \
    --cc=waxhead@dirtcellar.net \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox