linux-kernel - Re: tools support for non-512 byte sector sizes

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: <20080730135147.GA4513@auslistsprd01.us.dell.com>
Date:	Wed, 30 Jul 2008 08:51:47 -0500
From:	Matt Domsch <Matt_Domsch@...l.com>
To:	"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
Cc:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
	Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@...hat.com>, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, Jim Meyering <jim@...ering.net>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
Subject: Re: tools support for non-512 byte sector sizes

On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 02:48:31PM -0400, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> >>>>> "James" == James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com> writes:
> 
> James> The problem, which ata_ram also suffers, is that the tools we
> James> most need to test are the ones for manipulating non volatile
> James> characteristics (like partition tables).  We'd really like the
> James> disk contents to survive reboot for this ...
> 
> Yeah, I should add that I wanted persistence too.  I went through a
> whole stack (well, 5-6 or so) fibre channel drives from various
> vendors and attempted to low-level format them to 4KB sectors.  Most
> of them laughed in my face.  One of them tried to comply and
> irreparably confused its firmware in the process.
> 
> Just yesterday I received a couple of prototype drives in the mail.
> I'll ask the vendor whether they support 4KB and if so I'll give them
> a whirl.

I have access to disks with native 4KB sectors now too.  Would
interested parties be willing to share test plans, so we could be sure
we have coverage wrt correctness: kernel internals, userspace tools like parted,
fdisk, kpartx, apps using O_DIRECT)?  Benchmarking winds up being an
NDA activity this early in the game so I don't want the focus of any
joint work to be benchmarks yet.

-- 
Matt Domsch
Linux Technology Strategist, Dell Office of the CTO
linux.dell.com & www.dell.com/linux
--
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/