linux-kernel - Re: Direct IO for fat

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 09 Feb 2007 04:53:02 +0900
From:	OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>
To:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Direct IO for fat

Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> writes:

>> > -> blockdev_direct_IO()
>> >   -> direct_io_worker()
>> >     -> do_direct_IO()
>> >       -> get_more_blocks()
>> > 
>> > 		create = dio->rw & WRITE;
>>   Here, create == 1.
>> 
>> > 		if (dio->lock_type == DIO_LOCKING) {
>> > 			if (dio->block_in_file < (i_size_read(dio->inode) >>
>> > 							dio->blkbits))
>> > 				create = 0;
>>   But here create was reset back to 0 - exactly because
>> dio->block_in_file > i_size...
>   Obviously, I'm blind and you're right ;) This test is not satisfied
> and so create == 1.
>   But still it would seem better to me to return 0 from fat_direct_IO()
> instead of EINVAL so that write falls back to a buffered one, instead
> returning the error...

I see. When I wrote this, I thought kernel should use DIO to write if
user sets O_DIRECT. Because the wrong alignment request isn't fallback
to buffered-write, and it's also returns EINVAL.

But I don't have strong opinion here. If anyone (you) has any request
of it, I'll not have objection to it.
-- 
OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/