Re: [PATCH]: grub: Fix ofdisk disk cache corruption.

[David Miller]

From: phcoder <address@hidden>
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 12:44:10 +0200

> David Miller wrote:
>> From: Pavel Roskin <address@hidden>
>> Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 02:29:15 -0400
>> 
>>> On Sat, 2009-04-11 at 01:08 -0700, David Miller wrote:
>> I think fixing disk cache corruption is more important than
>> arguing over the distribution properties of the hash function
>> I have choosen.
>> 
> Yes, but weak hash has exactly the same problem, just on other systems

Nobody has even shown that the hash is actually weak or
not effective in any particular case, theoretical or otherwise.

That's why it frustrates me that we're discussing this at all.

"That hash might not be good, only 3 bits of entropy" meanwhile
we have a disk cache corrupt bug still unfixed.

Can't we bicker about these kinds of issues after the bug is
fixed?  And also, after some proof is given that the hash
matters at all.

Priorities are definitely wrong here.

>>> If you can save the device names, then there is no point in using
>>> hashes.  You can use (long)devpath.
>> Sure we need the hash, to find path entries we've saved beforehand.
> You can maintain a table of devpathes in cache and use the index in
> this table as id. This way is the safest

Ummm, that's essentially what my code does, except that the "index"
is the address of the cached path entry itself.