linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] blkdev: honor discard_granularity in blkdev_issue

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: <20110502232121.GD2978@dastard>
Date:	Tue, 3 May 2011 09:21:21 +1000
From:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To:	"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
Cc:	Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Dmitry Monakhov <dmonakhov@...nvz.org>,
	Jens Axboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] blkdev: honor discard_granularity in
 blkdev_issue_discard()

On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 10:38:38AM -0400, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> >>>>> "Lukas" == Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com> writes:
> 
> Lukas> As Jeff Moyer pointed out we do not honor discard granularity
> Lukas> while submitting REQ_DISCARD bios of size smaller than
> Lukas> max_discard_sectors.  That fact might have unwanted consequences
> Lukas> of device ignoring the request, or even worse if device firmware
> Lukas> is buggy.
> 
> We've discussed this before and the consensus was not to do it. The
> granularity is a hint, not a hard limit like max_discard_sectors.
> 
> We want the reporting to be comprehensive throughout the block layer. If
> we start aligning to the granularity at the top we lose information for
> stacked devices below with a finer granularity.
> 
> So if we were to align to the granularity we'd want to do it at the
> bottom of the stack when we issue the command to the device. We've had a
> few proposed patches to did that but so far we've only found one device
> where it made a difference. And that case didn't justify adding a quirk.

Adding this comment to the code to explain why we don't enforce the
granularity would be a good idea, yes?

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com
--
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/