linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 1/2] block: ioctl support for sanitize in eMMC 4.5

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: <201207261336.32018.arnd@arndb.de>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jul 2012 13:36:31 +0000
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	Yaniv Gardi <ygardi@...eaurora.org>
Cc:	linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
	open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 1/2] block: ioctl support for sanitize in eMMC 4.5

On Wednesday 25 July 2012, Yaniv Gardi wrote:
> 
> Adding a new ioctl to support sanitize operation in eMMC
> cards version 4.5.
> The sanitize ioctl support helps performing this operation
> via user application.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Yaniv Gardi <ygardi@...eaurora.org>
> 

Can you explain how you expect this to be called by a file system?
We've debated this in the past and concluded that we probably
want to do it at the same time as batched discard, but I don't
see if the sanitize request should be sent for each FITRIM
or whether we should better have a separate file system level
ioctl. My feeling is that it would be more useful to call this
feature through a file system level ioctl than through a block
level ioctl, but I guess it makes sense to support both.

	Arnd

--
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/