linux-kernel - Re: dm stripe: Fix bounds

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 linux-cve-announce 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]

Message-ID: <452E85ED.1040409@cfl.rr.com>
Date:	Thu, 12 Oct 2006 14:14:05 -0400
From:	Phillip Susi <psusi@....rr.com>
To:	Alasdair G Kergon <agk@...hat.com>,
	Phillip Susi <psusi@....rr.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Heinz Mauelshagen <mauelshagen@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: dm stripe: Fix bounds

So you are saying that dmraid should build 3 tables: 1 for the bulk of 
the array, 1 for only the last stripe, and 1 linear to connect them?

I'm not sure where the ambiguity is.  Obviously all the stripes prior to 
the last should behave normally, the only problem comes from the last 
stripe.  How else could you map the last stripe other than laying down x 
sectors onto y drives as x / y sectors on each drive in sequence?

Alasdair G Kergon wrote:
> But there's ambiguity: should dm truncate just the last stripe(s) or all
> stripes equally, or use some other combination of truncation?  The answer
> depends on the circumstances, and so it is for userspace, which should know
> which of those is required, to resolve the matter by supplying appropriate
> chunk sizes.
> 
> Alasdair

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/