Hi, That'd be another option.
In any case, someone would need to write the code and submit a pull request for this to happen. Best, -Nikolaus On Jun 20 2023, Peter Marshall <[email protected]> wrote: > Or just disable etag checking based on a configuration option, and let the > user decide? > > The documentation can explain the consequences - i.e. none if encryption > used, and > potential undetectable corruption if not. > > That way when all etags are md5 checksums, we don't lose anything. And when > they are not, > we can mount what is currently a broken FS by disabling the check. > > On 19/06/2023 21:57, Nikolaus Rath wrote: >> On Jun 19 2023, Peter Marshall <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Could the md5 (or some other signature) of the data be stored in metadata, >>> and we check >>> that instead of the Etag on reading? I've only briefly looked at the source >>> - maybe an >>> existing header is suitable. >> Yes, that is possible in principle but not currently done. We'd have to >> extend the metadata format to store this checksum. >> >> I'm just not convinced that it's worth it, since this effectively >> duplicates what's already done when using encryption. >> >> So perhaps the right answer is to disable ETag checking completely and >> require encryption to be used? Or disable it when encryption is active, >> so that it affects cases? >> >> Best, >> -Nikolaus >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "s3ql" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/s3ql/0f58bff2-cede-36ab-818e-061b32259a7b%40goteck.co.uk. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "s3ql" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/s3ql/87ilbhjm0j.fsf%40vostro.rath.org.
