Security Problem Discovered In Btrfs File-System

[phoronix]

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

[Cthulhux]

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

[crazycheese]

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

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.

[Cthulhux]

You make BSD look like trash can.

A trash can with ZFS, at least.

Second - ZFS inferior to BTRFS in many operations.

Superior in others.

Four - Linux has ZFS port, just as BSD.

... FUSE-based, thus (technically) entirely different.

Your trolling is weak, predictable and self-damaging.

Naming facts - no kernel-side ZFS on Linux - is trolling? Ah.

[Teho]

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.

[Cthulhux]

Oh. Hm. Discard my previous comments.

[vertexSymphony]

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.

[lsatenstein]

BTFRS and Desktop

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

I don't see any problem with desktop use. I actually like btfrs for what it provides me. My desktop does not run a server so, the exercise to create a DOS by hash collides is not something I will ever meet.

[Cthulhux]

Good point, lsatenstein. Here's what you miss:
http://rudd-o.com/linux-and-free-sof...ter-than-btrfs

[dfcat]

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

Seriously? this is neither a 'denial of service attack' nor a 'vulnerability' -

A 'denial of service attack' allows a remote (non-local) user to prevent a computer from operating normally.

This is like saying that since users can fill up disk drives, that the filesystems have 'a vulnerability' -

Since there is no security risk, there is no 'vulnerability'

This is just a *bug* in software that is basically in beta state, which is to be expected.

But much easier to spin it as a security issue on the security lists and get some free press,
all the while making yourself into a 'security expert' for finding this 'security issue'