linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] fs: Invalidate the cache for a parent block-device if fsync() is called for a partition

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: <20120131113250.816ee772.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Tue, 31 Jan 2012 11:32:50 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:	Niels de Vos <ndevos@...hat.com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>,
	Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>,
	"Bryn M. Reeves" <bmr@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] fs: Invalidate the cache for a parent block-device
 if fsync() is called for a partition

On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 14:04:25 -0500
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 10:58:24AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > One concern I have with the proposal is that it would forever rule out
> > support of >16T devices on 32-bit machines.
> > 
> > At present with 64-bit sector_t and 32-bit pgoff_t, I think we'd have a
> > reasonable chance of supporting, say, four 8T partitions on a 32T
> > device.  But if we were to switch the kernel from using four 4T
> > address_spaces (sda1-4) over to using a single 32T address_space (sda)
> > then we can rule it all out.
> 
> how do you plan to write the partition label in your hypothetic setup
> if you can't open the main device?
> 
> And even if we solved that and people could create partitions on these
> devices but not open the main device, or use large lvm volumes it would
> be an absolutely major confusion.
> 

I didn't say the kernel would support this as-is.

If the partitioning scheme requires writing to the individual
partitions then something would need to be done, such as a simple
offsetting DM driver.
--
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/