OpenBSD kernel address randomized link

Posted Jul 13, 2017 13:22 UTC (Thu) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167)
In reply to: OpenBSD kernel address randomized link by nix
Parent article: OpenBSD kernel address randomized link

Hmm, this may be the wrong place to ask but

Does XFS have read-only mounts? How do they interact with this... let's call it an optimisation?

Historically it seems like XFS log is not very big, so a correct implementation could read the entire thing into RAM, and consult it throughout all further operations. Obviously that's going to be both slow and error-prone, because it's basically taking a lot of situations where there's a happy path and splitting them into two similar but different happy paths one of which is very difficult to test. Is that really how all bootloaders designed to work with XFS do it?

I presume that the XFS authors focused instead on, as you say, "replaying the log at mount time", converting the mount to read-write on the fly which is cool but obviously there is no promise that's _possible_ let alone a good idea.

OpenBSD kernel address randomized link

Posted Jul 14, 2017 23:55 UTC (Fri) by rahvin (guest, #16953) [Link]

Presumably the current linux kernel drivers can adequately handle XFS in it's preferred order (I would assume so as I use XFS on a partition on my home server). Given this I believe the parent poster was simply lamenting that Grub2 doesn't just use this same behavior and has implemented a driver that's not following the appropriate standard leading to problems.

Without knowing anything about Grub's code I would say it shouldn't be that difficult to change the Grub2 behavior to the proper methodology without significant speed impacts because the kernels already got all that sorted out. The problem is likely that the Grub2 project isn't sexy, has limited contributors and it's not a popular issue, the single greatest weakness of getting any problem addressed in open source when you can't fix it yourself. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

OpenBSD kernel address randomized link

Posted Jul 17, 2017 17:32 UTC (Mon) by ikm (guest, #493) [Link]

As far as I remember ext4 remounts the filesystem read-write to replay the journal in this case (and subsequently remounts it back r/o), or refuses to mount the filesystem otherwise. I'd expect XFS to do the same, even though I'm just guessing at this point. I's just that putting journal checks thoughout all hot paths of the fs code just to implement read-only mounts doesn't sound very practical. It'd also be quite brittle/error prone.