From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AC7DBBFC8A for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2024 10:38:31 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 93BB91538C for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2024 10:38:31 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [94.136.29.106]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2024 10:38:30 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id BB11049033 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2024 10:38:30 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2024 10:38:24 +0100 From: Fabian =?iso-8859-1?q?Gr=FCnbichler?= To: Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20231207161038.90626-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> <20231207161038.90626-3-f.ebner@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20231207161038.90626-3-f.ebner@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: astroid/0.16.0 (https://github.com/astroidmail/astroid) Message-Id: <1704793089.szo3720zta.astroid@yuna.none> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -1.021 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment SCC_BODY_URI_ONLY 2.171 - SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - Subject: [pve-devel] applied: [PATCH docs 1/1] storage: lvm: expand on description of saferemove option X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2024 09:38:31 -0000 On December 7, 2023 5:10 pm, Fiona Ebner wrote: > mentioning why zeroing-out might be necessary. >=20 > Signed-off-by: Fiona Ebner > --- > pve-storage-lvm.adoc | 5 ++++- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >=20 > diff --git a/pve-storage-lvm.adoc b/pve-storage-lvm.adoc > index 917d8fb..cff5d3e 100644 > --- a/pve-storage-lvm.adoc > +++ b/pve-storage-lvm.adoc > @@ -38,7 +38,10 @@ on a remote iSCSI server. > `saferemove`:: > =20 > Zero-out data when removing LVs. When removing a volume, this makes > -sure that all data gets erased. > +sure that all data gets erased and cannot be accessed by other LVs > +created later (which happen to be assigned the same physical extents). > +This is a costly operation, but may be required as a security measure > +in certain environments. > =20 > `saferemove_throughput`:: > =20 > --=20 > 2.39.2 >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > pve-devel mailing list > pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com > https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel >=20 >=20 >=20