linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4] brd: Request from fdisk 4k alignment

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: <53E39DFE.6050501@plexistor.com>
Date:	Thu, 07 Aug 2014 18:40:46 +0300
From:	Boaz Harrosh <boaz@...xistor.com>
To:	Karel Zak <kzak@...hat.com>
CC:	Boaz Harrosh <openosd@...il.com>,
	Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	Matthew Wilcox <willy@...ux.intel.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] brd: Request from fdisk 4k alignment

On 08/07/2014 06:21 PM, Karel Zak wrote:
<>
> 
>  fdisk uses physical sector size or minimal I/O size (greater value wins)
> 

OK

>> I was trying to play with the  heads, sectors, cylinders; values but none I tried
> 
>  don't play with CHS, that's waste of time and it's completely ignored
>  by fdisk by default
> 
>> would cause an alignment of 4k, not even of the first partition start.
>>
>> Please advise what I can do?
> 
>  IMHO you're right with your patch (alignment offset is IMHO bad way).
>  It's all (brd) about pages, is there any reason to use something else
>  for I/O limits?
> 
>  It would be also nice to set minimal and optimal io size, zero values
>  in this case means (for userspace) that the device does not provide
>  any I/O information to system. It's normal for old hw disks and then
>  we use some built-in defaults, but I don't see a reason to do the
>  same for virtual devices. 
> 

Hi Ross

I have by now read the all code, and Karel also confirms this from fdisk
side. The best for us is the use of "physical sector size" but with
our "minimal I/O size" set to 512. The later has actual bad effects in
the Kernel code itself. But the "physical sector size" has no effect on
Kernel code, and actually has a very good affect on fdisk which now works
the way we would like it.

Please send your review-by so Jens can pick these up for mainline

>     Karel
> 

Thanks
Boaz

--
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/