linux-kernel - Re: Why is SECTOR_SIZE = 512 inside kernel ?

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]

Date:	Tue, 18 Aug 2015 23:06:47 +0200
From:	Brice Goglin <brice.goglin@...il.com>
To:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
CC:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Why is SECTOR_SIZE = 512 inside kernel ?

Le 17/08/2015 15:54, Theodore Ts'o a écrit :
> 
> It's cast in stone.  There are too many places all over the kernel,
> especially in a huge number of file systems, which assume that the
> sector size is 512 bytes.  So above the block layer, the sector size
> is always going to be 512.

Could this be a problem when using pmem/nvdimm devices with
byte-granularity (no BTT layer)? (hw_sector_size reports
512 in this case while we could expect 1 instead).
Or it just doesn't matter because BTT is the only way to use
these devices for filesystems like other block devices?

thanks
Brice

--
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/