From: Maxim Levitsky <maximlevitsky@gmail.com>
To: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Pierre Ossman <pierre@ossman.eu>,
Stefan Richter <stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de>,
Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
504391@bugs.debian.org,
Wouter van Heyst <larstiq@larstiq.dyndns.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmc: add module parameter to set whether cards are assumed removable
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:27:46 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1259594866.13049.56.camel@maxim-laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20091130135119.4bacade7@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
On Mon, 2009-11-30 at 13:51 +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Before we do suspend, pick few random sectors from the media, run that
> > through some hash function, thus creating some sort of watermark.
>
> Statistically speaking the chances are you'll catch zero sectors and
> lose. You'll also not detect the suspend, move to other box, use, put
> back error. That is one users make and we need to be at least vaguely
> robust against.
>
> Hence you need the fs checking here.
>
> Alan
I have to agree with you about that one.
An FS checking is really only solution.
Then I think such check can be added gradually to existing filesystems
(starting with fat), and allow these filesystems to persist across low
power states regardsless of CONFIG_$system_UNSAFE_RESUME
For fat, simple checksum of the 'fat' table will catch most attempts.
Also directory modification times can be compared, at least for root
directory.
Best regards,
Maxim Levitsky
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-11-30 15:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-11-11 4:44 [PATCH] mmc: add module parameter to set whether cards are assumed removable Ben Hutchings
2009-11-16 20:23 ` Andrew Morton
2009-11-16 22:31 ` Ben Hutchings
2009-11-17 7:53 ` Stefan Richter
2009-11-30 12:39 ` Pierre Ossman
2009-11-30 12:54 ` Alan Cox
2009-11-30 13:09 ` Pierre Ossman
2009-11-30 13:32 ` Maxim Levitsky
2009-11-30 13:51 ` Alan Cox
2009-11-30 15:27 ` Maxim Levitsky [this message]
2009-11-22 11:42 ` Bug#504391: " Wouter van Heyst
2009-11-22 12:32 ` Ben Hutchings
2009-12-01 19:57 ` Wouter van Heyst
2009-11-30 12:38 ` Adrian Hunter
2009-11-30 12:48 ` Alan Cox
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=1259594866.13049.56.camel@maxim-laptop \
--to=maximlevitsky@gmail.com \
--cc=504391@bugs.debian.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=ben@decadent.org.uk \
--cc=larstiq@larstiq.dyndns.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pierre@ossman.eu \
--cc=stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de \
/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