Re: [PATCH] 64 bit scsi read/write

From: Albert D. Cahalan (
Date: Sat Jul 21 2001 - 22:52:07 EST

Alexander Griesser writes:
> On Sun, Jul 15, 2001 at 09:08:41PM -0400, you wrote:

>> In a tree-structured filesystem, checksums on everything would only
>> cost you space similar to the number of pointers you have. Whenever
>> a non-leaf node points to a child, it can hold a checksum for that
>> child as well. This gives a very reliable way to spot filesystem
>> errors, including corrupt data blocks.
> Hmm, maybe this is crap, but: If the checksum-calculation for one
> node fails, wouldn't that mean, that the data in this node, is not
> to be trusted? therefore also the checksum of this node could be
> corrupted and so the node, 2 hops away, can't be validated with 100%
> certitude...

If I understand you right ("one"? "this"?), yes and we want that.

Node 1 has children 2, 3, and 4.
Node 3 has children 5, 6, and 7.
Node 6 has children 8, 9, and 10. (children might be data blocks)

To have a child is to have a checksum+pointer pair.

If node 3 contains a corrupt pointer to node 6, then it is unlikely
that the checksum will match. So node 6 is bad, along 8, 9, and 10.
(actually we might not be able to know that 8, 9, and 10 exist)
This result is wonderful, since it prevents interpreting random
disk blocks as useful data.

If node 3 contains a corrupt checksum for node 6, same thing. Damn.
This case should be rare, since why for node 1 have a checksum
that is OK for node 3 if node 3 has corruption?

If node 6 itself is corrupt, same thing. Good, we are stopped from
using bad data.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 23 2001 - 21:00:15 EST