Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 28

Thread: Security Problem Discovered In Btrfs File-System

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,613

    Default Security Problem Discovered In Btrfs File-System

    Phoronix: Security Problem Discovered In Btrfs File-System

    A hash-based denial-of-service attack vulnerability has been discovered for the Btrfs, the next-generation Linux file-system...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTI1MjU

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    215

    Default

    Welcome to the next generation, where Linux won't have anything like ZFS for another decade...

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    Completely natural reaction as beta software becomes more available and first adapters discover first real-life bugs.
    This was same with Linux.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cthulhux View Post
    Welcome to the next generation, where Linux won't have anything like ZFS for another decade...
    You make BSD look like trash can. Is it your original goal? Congratulate you on achievement?

    First - ZFS is Solaris exclusive and only ported to BSD.
    Second - ZFS inferior to BTRFS in many operations.
    Third - ZFS is different and for different scale, many complexities are excessive for different systems. ZFS is meant for datacenters.
    Four - Linux has ZFS port, just as BSD.
    Five - ZFS also had bugs. Its software.
    Six - ZFS also has limitations.
    Seven - ZFS developers very very rarely accept patches to improve its "desktop" usage. See (3).

    The only fact is that ZFS is purposely not compatible to GPL.
    Should ZFS have used GPL license, you would post "Welcome to next generation, where filesystems choose stupid license as usual" instead.

    Your trolling is weak, predictable and self-damaging.
    Last edited by crazycheese; 12-14-2012 at 07:54 PM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    215

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crazycheese View Post
    You make BSD look like trash can.
    A trash can with ZFS, at least.

    Quote Originally Posted by crazycheese View Post
    Second - ZFS inferior to BTRFS in many operations.
    Superior in others.

    Quote Originally Posted by crazycheese View Post
    Four - Linux has ZFS port, just as BSD.
    ... FUSE-based, thus (technically) entirely different.

    Quote Originally Posted by crazycheese View Post
    Your trolling is weak, predictable and self-damaging.
    Naming facts - no kernel-side ZFS on Linux - is trolling? Ah.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    593

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cthulhux View Post
    Naming facts - no kernel-side ZFS on Linux - is trolling? Ah.
    Actually there's a ZFS on Linux project that is quite active. It was discussed quite a bit at ZFS Day too.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    215

    Default

    Oh. Hm. Discard my previous comments.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    111

    Default

    First - ZFS is Solaris exclusive and only ported to BSD.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZFS#Comparisons

    ┐Was that hard to even take a look at Wikipedia? Some other OS that have the porting underway are missing from there.

    Second - ZFS inferior to BTRFS in many operations.
    Third - ZFS is different and for different scale, many complexities are excessive for different systems. ZFS is meant for datacenters.
    Four - Linux has ZFS port, just as BSD.
    Five - ZFS also had bugs. Its software.
    Six - ZFS also has limitations.
    Seven - ZFS developers very very rarely accept patches to improve its "desktop" usage. See (3).
    Please, back up your claims and dont make empty statements that revolves around "something" that isn't well stated and elaborated.
    Thank you.

    ... FUSE-based, thus (technically) entirely different.
    The FUSE port is not the only one ... http://zfsonlinux.org/
    But if your ask me ... I wouldn't trust that piece of software yet.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vertexSymphony View Post
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZFS#Comparisons
    ┐Was that hard to even take a look at Wikipedia? Some other OS that have the porting underway are missing from there.
    Was that hard to even use Wikipedia properly?
    "ZFS was designed and implemented by a team at Sun led by Jeff Bonwick and Matthew Ahrens. It was announced on September 14, 2004,[5] but development started in 2001.[6] Source code for ZFS was integrated into the main trunk of Solaris development on October 31, 2005[7] and released as part of build 27 of OpenSolaris on November 16, 2005. Sun announced that ZFS was included in the 6/06 update to Solaris 10 in June 2006, one year after the opening of the OpenSolaris community."

    Is this hard to understand "ZFS was Solaris exclusive"? Can you distinguish "original platform" and "port platform"? I am sure you can.
    Sun made it. Sun was author of Solaris. This is very illogical,no?

    Quote Originally Posted by vertexSymphony View Post
    Please, back up your claims and dont make empty statements that revolves around "something" that isn't well stated and elaborated.
    Thank you.
    Ok sir, you asked for it, so better stand back.
    First - ZFS is Solaris exclusive and only ported to BSD.
    Second - ZFS inferior to BTRFS in many operations. Many times it looses because its just too complex. Other times it looses due to design. It is more polished, but it is different. Compare FAT32 with EXT4 in data ordered mode - you get equal numbers, EXT4 will loose. Is this bad? No.
    Third - ZFS is different and for different scale, many complexities are excessive for different systems. ZFS is meant for datacenters. You want to use ZFS only if you fear bit-rot, but the performance will be abysmal and most features will simply be outside of scope of desktop usage. Datacenters have plenty of raw performance, they need security, so they trade (excessive) performance for security.
    Four - Linux has ZFS port, just as BSD.
    Five - ZFS also had bugs. Its software.
    Six - ZFS also has limitations.
    Seven - ZFS developers very very rarely accept patches to improve its "desktop" usage.
    The only fact is that ZFS is purposely not compatible to GPL.
    Last edited by crazycheese; 12-15-2012 at 05:06 AM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    40

    Default

    It is very true that ZFS isn't very good for desktop usage.
    btrfs is much more universal.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crazycheese View Post
    Was that hard to even use Wikipedia properly?
    "ZFS was designed and implemented by a team at Sun led by Jeff Bonwick and Matthew Ahrens. It was announced on September 14, 2004,[5] but development started in 2001.[6] Source code for ZFS was integrated into the main trunk of Solaris development on October 31, 2005[7] and released as part of build 27 of OpenSolaris on November 16, 2005. Sun announced that ZFS was included in the 6/06 update to Solaris 10 in June 2006, one year after the opening of the OpenSolaris community."

    Is this hard to understand "ZFS was Solaris exclusive"? Can you distinguish "original platform" and "port platform"? I am sure you can.
    Sun made it. Sun was author of Solaris. This is very illogical,no?
    Then make up your mind with this statement:

    Quote Originally Posted by crazycheese View Post
    First - ZFS is Solaris exclusive and only ported to BSD.
    Note: I added the bold/underline

    ZFS was conceived in Solaris (d'oh !), but not exclusive of this platform ... even if you "only ported to BSD" is still wrong, you say the opposite you said before with the "exclusive".

    I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE

    First of all, Wikipedia is outdated in some areas regarding ZFS.
    Second → I'm sorry, but BSD is not an OS (I'll take it as a OS family) ... and again

    With only this, I invalidate your point → http://zfsonlinux.org/
    With this too → http://code.google.com/p/maczfs/
    Again, with this too → https://www.haiku-os.org/tags/zfs
    Also this → https://duckduckgo.com/?q=IllumOS

    Not counting the different *BSD systems.
    I prefer to talk about the community and free ZFS, not the Oracle's one ... ty very much

    Second - ZFS inferior to BTRFS in many operations. Many times it looses because its just too complex. Other times it looses due to design. It is more polished, but it is different. Compare FAT32 with EXT4 in data ordered mode - you get equal numbers, EXT4 will loose. Is this bad? No.
    First of all, citing a benchmark from Michael Larabel is something I always "take with tweezers"
    Michael is well known for his "well" and badly done benchmarks mostly because he had no formation on what he was benchmarking ... I remember a really horribly made benchmark (in fact, if my memory doesn't fail in one of the "benchmarks" he didn't use the same hardware) that ended up in a flame war in the mailing lists and this wiki page was born from that: http://wiki.freebsd.org/BenchmarkAdvice

    That article FROM 2010 lacks information about OS, configuration, specific filesystem configurations and some extra information to actually extract something meaninful from these numbers ... sorry, can't take that seriously, but those are cute colored graphs nonetheless
    When it comes to linux graphical stack benchs, some people here also remembers horribly done benchmarks ...

    Do you have anything with a little bit more substance?

    Third - ZFS is different and for different scale, many complexities are excessive for different systems. ZFS is meant for datacenters. You want to use ZFS only if you fear bit-rot, but the performance will be abysmal and most features will simply be outside of scope of desktop usage. Datacenters have plenty of raw performance, they need security, so they trade (excessive) performance for security.
    ┐Abysmal performance? Please, explain me that point because I recognize that the lack of block pointer rewrite is a hit on the performance (that's being worked out) on low space situations ... but tools like external ZIL or cache devices makes a worlds of difference in performance when you have multiple devices (SSDs included) in your hands.

    btrfs doesn't have anything like this (even if we ignore that we are talking about an unstable filesystem) ... if I'm mistaken, please provide me proper information.

    I use ZFS on my desktop, and I can assure you that my computer is not a datacenter ... some people use it even in lower end hardware and more constrained situation with no issues.
    Of course, you won't exploit the full potential of ZFS without proper gear; but that's another story that also applies to other filesystems

    Yes and no ... It's a port, correct.
    But platorm is properly abstracted and the "core" of the filesystem is VERY portable that's why the feature flags were introduced in the first place.

    http://svnweb.freebsd.org/base?view=...evision=236884

    Agreed.
    But we are talking about whole worlds of differences between btrfs and ZFS when it comes to testing.

    Yes ... it was conceived 11 years ago aprox.

    While the ZFS community may care about solving this problem, it's not the highest priority for Sun's customers and, therefore, for the ZFS team.
    That's something from the Sun era ... the development of ZFS changed a lot since that time.
    Have something more recent?

    Licensing discussions, don't really like them ... short story is YES, you're right.


    Regards

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •