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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 16:57:41 -0400 From: Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu> To: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com> Cc: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>, Jens Axboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com>, "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>, "James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com" <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>, "linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: I/O topology fixes for big physical block size On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 10:15:45AM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote: > Actually, -F allows one to override fs blocksize < physical_block_size. > > In this instance we have the following: > # cat /sys/block/dm-2/queue/physical_block_size > 1048576 > # cat /sys/block/dm-2/queue/logical_block_size > 512 > > > Should we change something? > > Unclear. I could see maybe automatically capping the fs block size at > 4096 if physical_block_size is larger and is a multiple of 4096? Can we decide soon what the right thing should be? I'm about to release e2fsrogs 1.41.13, and if I should put in some sanity checking code so mke2fs does something sane when it sees a 1M physical block size, I can do that. Or if the kernel is going to do that, it's fine too.... - Ted -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists