[squid-dev] [RFC] Do we want paranoid_hit_validation?

Amos Jeffries squid3 at treenet.co.nz
Tue Jan 8 08:50:20 UTC 2019

On 8/01/19 4:58 pm, Alex Rousskov wrote:
> Hello,
>     Squid has a few bugs that may result in rock cache corruption.
> Factory is working on fixing those bugs. During that work, we have added
> support for validating rock disk cache entry metadata at the time of a
> cache hit.
> This particular validation does not require checksums or other expensive
> computations. It does not require disk I/O. The code simply traverses
> the chain of disk slot metadata for the entry and compares the sum of
> individual slot sizes with the expected total cache entry size. The
> validation is able to detect many (but not all) cases of cache index
> corruption.

> What do you think?

Does it have to be a global directive like proposed?

An option of cache_dir would seem better. That would allow admin to work
tune it to match their different cache types and object-size separation
(if any).


More information about the squid-dev mailing list