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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 22:42:29 +0900 From: OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp> To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: Direct IO for fat Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> writes: >> I see. When I wrote this, I thought kernel should use DIO to write if >> user sets O_DIRECT. Because the wrong alignment request isn't fallback >> to buffered-write, and it's also returns EINVAL. > I understand. It's just that I've got some surprised users who could not > track why the hell does write() return EINVAL to them when they have > everything alligned and the same code works for EXT3 :). Of course, nothing > guarantees that FAT should behave the same way as EXT3 but I can understand > they were surprised (I had to look in the code too). > I also don't have a strong opinion whether we should fallback to buffered > write automagically or whether we should return EINVAL and let the user fall > back to the buffered write himself. But I'd slightly prefer the first > option. Hm, ok. I'll change EINVAL to zero as soon as possible after test. Thanks. -- OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp> - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists