linux-kernel - Re: Direct IO for fat

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87y7n71m7u.fsf@duaron.myhome.or.jp>
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/