linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] block: add alt

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: <ac3eb2510905090926r4ac0bc52kb8639101f0c78d86@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sat, 9 May 2009 18:26:56 +0200
From:	Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	jeff@...zik.org, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, jens.axboe@...cle.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
	James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com, Mauelshagen@...hat.com,
	dm-devel@...hat.com, dan.j.williams@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] block: add alt_size

On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 16:04, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
> Kay Sievers wrote:
>> What does "alt_" stand for? I think that should be more descriptive in
>> an exported interface.
>
> Alternative.
>
>> And can we please keep the "size_*" in front of the name, so that they
>> group together?
>
> Maybe, but size_alt?  Any better ideas?

"size_limit"
"size_restricted"
"size_clipped"
"size_constrain"

anything that ideally would express that this is smaller than the
actual "size", and that is is a "configured" value and not some
hardware property.

>> Also, values with magic block counts, while there is no way to get the
>> blocksize with the same interface, are pretty weird. I think the
>> current "size" attribute is just a bug.
>
> Logical block size is fixed at 512 bytes.  Offset and size are always
> represented in multiples of 512 bytes and only get converted to
> hardware block size in the lld.

Oh, good. Didn't know that this will always be 512, even for devices
with a native size larger than this.

>> Not sure, how that should be solved, by adding a "blocksize" attribute
>> that is always in the same context as the current "size*" values, or
>> by just using bytes for new attributes here.
>>
>> Almost all tools I've seen using these attributes, have hardcoded *
>> 512 in there, which may cause trouble pretty soon. And this is mostly
>> a failure of the interface and not of the users, I think.
>
> No, it will never break.  It will always be 512.

Cool. No problem then. :)

> For userlevel exporting, it might have been better to use just bytes
> there as preformance isn't really an issue, but, well, it's already
> determined, so..

Right, but if it can not change, it's fine, I guess.

Thanks,
Kay
--
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/