linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] ubifs: Allow O

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: <1440070182.31419.200.camel@gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 20 Aug 2015 14:29:42 +0300
From:	Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com>
To:	Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	Dongsheng Yang <yangds.fnst@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ubifs: Allow O_DIRECT

On Wed, 2015-08-19 at 22:35 +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Currently UBIFS does not support direct IO, but some applications
> blindly use the O_DIRECT flag.
> Instead of failing upon open() we can do better and fall back
> to buffered IO.
> 
> Cc: Dongsheng Yang <yangds.fnst@...fujitsu.com>
> Cc: dedekind1@...il.com
> Suggested-by: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
> Signed-off-by: Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>

Richard,

The idea was to explicitly reject what we do not support. Let's say I
am an app which requires O_DIRECT, and which does not want to work with
non-O_DIRECT. What would I do to ensure O_DIRECT?

Could you please check what other file-systems which do not support
O_DIRECT do in this case? Do they also fall-back to normal IO instead
of explicitly failing? If yes, we can do what is considered to be the
"standard" behavior.

Thanks!


--
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/