linux-ext4 - Re: I/O topology fixes for big physical block size

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

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

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

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