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:   Wed, 15 Jun 2022 06:12:04 -0700
From:   Christoph Hellwig <>
To:     Eric Biggers <>
Cc:     Dave Chinner <>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <>,,,,,,,,,
        Keith Busch <>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/7] statx: add I/O alignment information

On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 10:25:12PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> While working on the man-pages update, I'm having second thoughts about the
> stx_offset_align_optimal field.  Does any filesystem other than XFS actually
> want stx_offset_align_optimal, when st[x]_blksize already exists?  Many network
> filesystems, as well as tmpfs when hugepages are enabled, already report large
> (megabytes) sizes in st[x]_blksize.  And all documentation I looked at (man
> pages for Linux, POSIX, FreeBSD, NetBSD, macOS) documents st_blksize as
> something like "the preferred blocksize for efficient I/O".  It's never
> documented as being limited to PAGE_SIZE, which makes sense because it's not.

Yes.  While st_blksize is utterly misnamed, it has always aways been
the optimal I/O size.

> Perhaps for now we should just add STATX_DIOALIGN instead of STATX_IOALIGN,
> leaving out the stx_offset_align_optimal field?  What do people think?

Yes, this sounds like a good plan.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists