On Sat, 2016-09-24 at 17:40 +0500, Roman Mamedov wrote: > Yes. IIRC the reasoning was that it's more difficult to track > checksums of > data which is being overwritten in-place (as opposed to CoW). AFAIU it wouldn't be more difficult, since the meta-data itself is still subject to CoW...
There's just no guarantee in the case of a crash, that checksum and data match (which is IMO however a small price to pay - especially as the data is in that case and without CoW anyway not guaranteed to be valid - compared to all sorts of other silent corruptions against which checksums protect... not to talk about the ability to actually repair files in case of RAID inconsistencies. > You can't apply chattr +C to any files of non-zero length, so by > definition > there won't be any pre-existing checksummed extents in that file. Speaking of which,... can't one modify chattr properly so that it gives an error message and $? != 0 in that case? Cheers, Chris.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
