linux-kernel - Re: Bug in BLKBSZSET/GET ioctl ?

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: <4EFC0435.3020908@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Thu, 29 Dec 2011 14:09:57 +0800
From:	Wanlong Gao <gaowanlong@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
CC:	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Bug in BLKBSZSET/GET ioctl ?

On 12/29/2011 12:40 PM, Wu Fengguang wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 12:28:44PM +0800, Wanlong Gao wrote:
>> On 12/29/2011 12:20 PM, Wu Fengguang wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 11:51:45AM +0800, Wanlong Gao wrote:
>>>> Hi all:
>>>>
>>>> This is first reported to *libguestfs*: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=624335
>>>>
>>>> Then, I looked into upstream util-linux and it seems nothing wrong. I'm not convinced that it's a kernel bug.
>>>>
>>>> produce:
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> # ./util-linux/disk-utils/blockdev --getbsz /dev/sda6
>>>> 4096
>>>> # ./util-linux/disk-utils/blockdev --setbsz 2048 /dev/sda6
>>>> # ./util-linux/disk-utils/blockdev --getbsz /dev/sda6
>>>> 4096
>>>> # ./util-linux/disk-utils/blockdev --setbsz 512 /dev/sda6
>>>> # ./util-linux/disk-utils/blockdev --getbsz /dev/sda6
>>>> 4096
>>>
>>> I think each blockdev invocation is working on a *new* bdev object.
>>
>>
>> But the address of *new* bdev is the same?
>> I did printk, and they all returned the same address.
> 
> Then the block size value should be reset in one of the bd_set_size()
> calls in __blkdev_get().


Is the behaviour right that setting bd_block_size to the logical_block_size
every time when __blkdev_get()?

> 
>>> You'll get consistent results if somehow keep it referenced, for
>>
>>
>> But isn't it a bug? It seems that the setbsz has no effect?
> 
> Yeah, it does look like unexpected behavior to the end user..


And at least, the ioctl BLKBZSET seems useless.

Thanks
-Wanlong 

> 
> Thanks,
> Fengguang
> 


--
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/