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:   Mon, 06 Jan 2020 22:24:09 -0500
From:   "Martin K. Petersen" <>
To:     Kirill Tkhai <>
Cc:     "Martin K. Petersen" <>,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/3] block: Add support for REQ_OP_ASSIGN_RANGE operation


Sorry, the holiday break got in the way.

> But I also worry about NOFALLBACK case. There are possible block
> devices, which support write zeroes, but they can't allocate blocks
> (block allocation are just not appliable for them, say, these are all
> ordinary hdd).

Correct. We shouldn't go down this path unless a device is thinly
provisioned (i.e. max_discard_sectors > 0).

> But won't it be a good thing to return EOPNOTSUPP right from
> __blkdev_issue_write_zeroes() in case of block device can't allocate
> blocks (q->limits.write_zeroes_can_allocate in the patch below)? Here
> is just a way to underline block devices, which support write zeroes,
> but allocation of blocks is meant nothing for them (wasting of time).

I don't like "write_zeroes_can_allocate" because that makes assumptions
about WRITE ZEROES being the command of choice. I suggest we call it
"max_allocate_sectors" to mirror "max_discard_sectors". I.e. put
emphasis on the semantic operation and not the plumbing.

Martin K. Petersen	Oracle Linux Engineering

Powered by blists - more mailing lists