Data Corrupting ext3 Bug In Latest Linux 2.4.20

An anonymous reader writes "Andrew Morton alerted readers of the Linux Kernel mailing list today that ext3 in the 2.4.20 kernel has a new bug that can easily cause file data corruption at unmount time. The bug will only affect people using ext3 in "data=journal" mode, which fortunately is not the default... Full details can be read on KernelTrap."

Comments

another victory for open source

[tps12]

Forgive me for gloating, but I'm once again elated at how quickly this bug was squashed. Literally hours after the kernel was released, we have a fix available. Meanwhile, Windorks are still getting hammered by the Klez and ILOVEYOU virii. It's a miracle Linux and less popular open source programs like *BSD haven't wiped out the competition entirely.

Of course, I'm sure some of the more bleeding-edge types were bitten by this buglet, but I guess that comes with the territory; backup backup backup! I hope no Slashdotters lost any of their porn collections.

Re:another victory for open source

[shaitand]

The difference between this and every 2cent obscure vulnerability in IE and IIS is that in IE or IIS they would have been discovered 6 months or more after release, in turn microsoft would deny they exist for another 3 months, then another month would go by before microsoft would release a fix. In the meantime developers as talented or moreso than those at microsoft who are unfortunate enough to work in a windows enironment would be forced to sit and wait because they can't look at the code and fix it themselves.

Re:another victory for open source

[Tumbleweed]

You'd seem smarter if you didn't use the non-word 'virii'. The correct plural form is 'viruses'.

And this is hardly a 'victory' for open source. Fixing a bug (or not, as the case apparently is) is never a victory. If they'd been able to put out a version of the kernel without a serious bug, now *that* could be considered a victory.

Re:another victory for open source

[The Bungi]

Gosh, you misunderstand me. I'm not trying to compare bugs or vulnerabilities or their significance or even their seriousness.

Read my post again. Slowly. Then read it again. And then, if you understand what I was trying to say, post an intelligent reply. Otherwise keep your insight to yourself. Your attempt to rationalize whatever it is you conceived as my slight towards everybody's favorite OS was a waste of time and keyboard lubricant.

If this is your typical posting, yes.

ROFLMAO, and you even added me to your "foes" list - how charming.

bad for linux tco :(

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's have a close look at the costs involved when running a Linux system.

An important factor in Linux' cost is its maintenance. Linux requires a *lot* of maintenance, work doable only by the relatively few high-paid Linux administrators that put themselves - of course willingly - at a great place in the market. Linux seems to be needing maintenance continuously, to keep it from breaking down.

Add to this the cost of loss of data. Linux' native file system, EXT2FS, is known to lose data like a firehose spouts water when the file system isn't unmounted properly. Other unix file systems are much more tolerant towards unexpected crashes. An example is the FreeBSD file system, which with soft updates enabled, performance-wise blows EXT2FS out of the water, and doesn't have the negative drawback of extreme data loss in case of a system breakdown.

According to Linux advocates, an alternative to EXT2FS would be ReiserFS. Unfortunately, ReiserFS is still in beta stage. This means it is not intended for production use (although according to many Linux advocates this shouldn't be a problem, which makes me wonder how (little) valuable they find your data).

The other proposed 'solution', EXT3FS, is nothing more than an ugly hack to put journaling into the file system. All the drawbacks of the ancient EXT2FS file system remain in EXT3FS, for the sake of 'forward- and backward compatibility'. This is interesting, considering that the DOS heritage in the Windows 9x/ME series was considered a very bad thing by the Linux community, even though it provided what could be called one of the best examples of compatibility, ever. When it's about Linux, compatibility constraints don't seem to be that much of a problem for Linux advocates.

Back to Linux' cost. Factor in also the fact that crashes happen much more often on Linux than on other unices. On other unices, crashes usually are caused by external sources like power outages. Crashes in Linux are a regular thing, and nobody seems to know what causes them, internally. Linux advocates try to hide this fact by denying crashes ever happen. Instead, they have frequent "hardware problems".

The steep learning curve compared to about any other operating system out there is a major factor in Linux' cost. The system is a mix of features from all kinds of unices, but not one of them is implemented right. A Linux user has to live with badly coded tools which have low performance, mangle data seemingly at random and are not in line with their specification. On top of that a lot of them spit out the most childish and unprofessional messages, indicating that they were created by 14-year olds with too much time, no talent and a bad attitude.

I could go on and on and on, but the conclusion is clear. Linux is not an option for any one who seeks a professional OS with high performance, scalability, stability, adherence to standards, etc.