xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Safe to use XFS in production in Linux 3.2.9?

To: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Safe to use XFS in production in Linux 3.2.9?
From: Sean Thomas Caron <scaron@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 14:06:00 -0500
Cc: scaron@xxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) H3 (4.3.5)
Hi all,

We're currently using Linux 3.0.12 with Cristoph's xfs-bulletproof-sync patch and it seems to be working very well for us. Unfortunately this kernel is vulnerable to the recent CVE-2012-0056 no permission checking on writes to /proc/(pid)/mem local root exploit, so we've got to leave it behind.

I see that the newest recommended stable kernel on kernel.org is 3.2.9. Have there been any major changes to XFS between 3.0.12 and 3.2.9 that would be considered "risky" in a production environment? Is there any reason why we shouldn't be using 3.2.9 in production? We got bit pretty hard by various sync failure bugs in 2.6.38 that resulted in major data loss - so I want to make absolutely sure there aren't any "snakes in the grass" before we try a newer kernel.

If 3.2.9 is not suitable, is there at least a kernel in 3.2-train that is fairly safe as far as XFS goes?

I assume the xfs-bulletproof-sync patch has already been committed to the code base in 3.2-train, so we shouldn't have to worry about that any longer?

I'm not subscribed to the list; please CC any replies to my personal e-mail and expect some delay in response; I'm just watching the mailing list through the archives.

Thank you!

-Sean

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>