linux-kernel - Re: absurdly high "optimal_io

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <yq1bnoj9dvu.fsf@sermon.lab.mkp.net>
Date:	Fri, 07 Nov 2014 11:25:25 -0500
From:	"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
To:	Chris Friesen <chris.friesen@...driver.com>
Cc:	"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>, Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: absurdly high "optimal_io_size" on Seagate SAS disk

>>>>> "Chris" == Chris Friesen <chris.friesen@...driver.com> writes:

Chris,

Chris> Also, I think it's wrong for filesystems and userspace to use it
Chris> for alignment.  In E.4 and E.5 in the "sbc3r25.pdf" doc, it looks
Chris> like they use the optimal granularity field for alignment, not
Chris> the optimal transfer length.

The original rationale behind the OTLG and OTL values was to be able to
express stripe chunk size and stripe width. And to encourage aligned,
full stripe writes but nothing bigger than that. Obviously the wording
went through the usual standards body process to be vague/generic enough
to be used for anything. It has changed several times since sbc3r25,
btw.

The kernel really isn't using io_opt. The value is merely stacked and
communicated to userspace. The reason the partitioning tools blow up
with weird values is that they try to align partitions beginnings to the
stripe width. Which is the right thing to do as far as I'm concerned.

I have worked with many, many partners in the storage industry to make
sure they report sensible values in the Block Limits VPD. I have no
reason to believe that the SAS drive issue in question is anything but a
simple typo. I know there was a bug open with Seagate. I assume it has
been fixed in their latest firmware. To my knowledge it is not a problem
in any of their other drive models. Certainly isn't in any of the ones
we are shipping.

The unfortunate thing with disk drives is that firmware updates are much
harder to deal with. And you rarely end up having access to an updated
firmware unless your drive was procured through a vendor like Dell, HP
or Oracle. That's why I originally opted to quirk this model in
Linux. Otherwise I would just have said "update your firmware".

If we had devices from many different vendors showing up with values
that constantly threw off our tooling I would have more reason to be
concerned. But we haven't. And this code has been in the kernel since
2.6.32 or so.

-- 
Martin K. Petersen	Oracle Linux Engineering
--
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/