On 7/11/2018 1:20 AM, Luke Hinds wrote:
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 9:08 PM, Jim Rollenhagen
mailto:j...@jimrollenhagen.com>> wrote:
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 3:28 PM, Martin Chlumsky
mailto:martin.chlum...@gmail.com>> wrote:
It is the workaround that is right and the
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 9:08 PM, Jim Rollenhagen
wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 3:28 PM, Martin Chlumsky <
> martin.chlum...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It is the workaround that is right and the discussion part that is wrong.
>>
>> I am familiar with this bug. Using thin volumes *and/or* enabling
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 3:28 PM, Martin Chlumsky
wrote:
> It is the workaround that is right and the discussion part that is wrong.
>
> I am familiar with this bug. Using thin volumes *and/or* enabling zero
> padding DOES ensure data contained
> in a volume is actually deleted.
>
Great, that's
It is the workaround that is right and the discussion part that is wrong.
I am familiar with this bug. Using thin volumes *and/or* enabling zero
padding DOES ensure data contained
in a volume is actually deleted.
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 10:41 AM Jim Rollenhagen
wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 4:20 AM, Luke Hinds wrote:
> Data retained after deletion of a ScaleIO volume
> ---
>
> ### Summary ###
> Certain storage volume configurations allow newly created volumes to
> contain previous data. This could lead to leakage of sensitive
> information between tenants.
>
