On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 07:44:12AM -0400, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote: > On 2015-04-21 05:38, Russell Coker wrote: > > On Tue, 21 Apr 2015, Qu Wenruo <quwenruo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Although we may add extra check for such problem to improve robustness, > >> but IMHO it's not a real world problem. > > > > Some of the ReiserFS developers gave a similar reaction to some of my bug > > reports. ReiserFS wasn't the most robust filesystem. > > > > I think that it should be EXECTED that a kernel will have to occasionally deal > > with filesystem images that are created by hostile parties. Userspace crash > > and kernel freeze is not a suitable way of dealing with it. > > > And that kind of reaction is why ReiserFS isn't taken very seriously in > an enterprise environment. > > Just because something shouldn't be possible in a 'real world' > environment, doesn't mean it won't happen; never underestimate the > ability of hardware to fail in new and unexpected ways, or the ability > of administrators to make stupid mistakes. I agree, given the high number of random memory bitflips that I've seen in past years, that were stored to the disk with valid checksums. Whether it's a real-world or potentially a hw problem IMO adjusts the priority, but the issues should be fixed if possible. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
