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  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:	Mon, 2 Jul 2012 09:00:34 -0400
From:	Mike Snitzer <>
To:	Paolo Bonzini <>
Cc:	Dave Chinner <>, Spelic <>,
	device-mapper development <>,,,,,
	"Martin K. Petersen" <>
Subject: Re: Ext4 and xfs problems in dm-thin on allocation and discard

On Sun, Jul 01 2012 at 10:53am -0400,
Paolo Bonzini <> wrote:

> Il 21/06/2012 19:47, Mike Snitzer ha scritto:
> > Paolo Bonzini fixed blkdev_issue_discard to properly align some time
> > ago; unfortunately the patches slipped through the cracks (cc'ing Paolo,
> > Jens, and Christoph).
> > 
> > Here are references to Paolo's patches:
> > 0/2
> > 1/2
> > 2/2
> > 
> > Patch 2/2 specifically addresses the case where:
> >  discard_max_bytes == discard_granularity 
> > 
> > Paolo, any chance you could resend to Jens (maybe with hch's comments on
> > patch#2 accounted for)?  Also, please add hch's Reviewed-by when
> > reposting.
> Sure, I'll do it this week.  I just need to retest.

Great, thanks.

(cc'ing mkp)

One thing that seemed odd was your adjustment for discard_alignment (in
patch 1/2).

I need to better understand how discard_alignment (an offset despite the
name not saying as much) relates to alignment_offset.

Could just be that once a partition tool, or lvm, etc account for
alignment_offset (which they do now) that discard_alignment is
automagically accounted for as a side-effect?

(I haven't actually seen discard_alignment != 0 in the wild)

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists