linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 3/4] SCT Write Same / DSM Trim

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:   Mon, 22 Aug 2016 08:33:58 +0000
From:   Tom Yan <tom.ty89@...il.com>
To:     Shaun Tancheff <shaun@...cheff.com>
Cc:     linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        "Martin K . Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@...t.com>,
        Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>,
        Josh Bingaman <josh.bingaman@...gate.com>,
        Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.com>,
        Shaun Tancheff <shaun.tancheff@...gate.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 3/4] SCT Write Same / DSM Trim

On 22 August 2016 at 08:31, Tom Yan <tom.ty89@...il.com> wrote:
> As mentioned before, as of the latest draft of ACS-4, nothing about a
> larger payload size is mentioned. Conservatively speaking, it sort of

*payload block size

> means that we are allowing four 512-byte block payload on 4Kn device

*eight 512-byte-block payload

> regardless of the reported limit in the IDENTIFY DEVICE data. I am
> really not sure if it's a good thing to do. Doesn't seem necessary
> anyway, especially when our block layer does not support such a large
> bio size (well, yet), so each request will end up using a payload of
> two 512-byte blocks at max anyway.
>
> Also, it's IMHO better to do it in a seperate patch (series) after the
> SCT Write Same support has entered libata's repo too, because this has
> nothing to with it but TRIM translation. In case the future ACS
> standards has clearer/better instruction on this, it will be easier
> for us to revert/follow up too.
>
> And you'll need to fix the Block Limits VPD simulation
> (ata_scsiop_inq_b0) too, so that it will advertise the Maximum Write
> Same Length dynamically as per the logical sector size, otherwise your
> effort will be completely in vain, even if our block layer is
> overhauled in the future.
>
> Please be noted that, since your haven't touched ata_scsiop_inq_b0 at
> all, the reported Maximum Write Same Length will be:
>
> On device with TRIM support:
> - 4194240 LOGICAL sector per request split / command
> -- ~=2G on non-4Kn drives
> -- ~=16G on non-4Kn drives
>
> On device without TRIM support:
> - 0 --> SD_MAX_WS10_BLOCKS (65535) per request split / command
> -- ~= 32M on non-4Kn drives
> -- ~=256M on non-4Kn drives
>
> Even if we ignore the upper limit(s) of the block layer, do we want
> such inconsistencies?
>