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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2021 14:14:12 +0800 From: Coly Li <colyli@...e.de> To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-raid@...r.kernel.org, nvdimm@...ts.linux.dev, antlists@...ngman.org.uk, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>, Richard Fan <richard.fan@...e.com>, Vishal L Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>, rafael@...nel.org Subject: Re: Too large badblocks sysfs file (was: [PATCH v3 0/7] badblocks improvement for multiple bad block ranges) On 9/23/21 2:08 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 01:59:28PM +0800, Coly Li wrote: >> Hi all the kernel gurus, and folks in mailing lists, >> >> This is a question about exporting 4KB+ text information via sysfs >> interface. I need advice on how to handle the problem. Hi Greg, This is the code in mainline kernel for quite long time. > Please do not do that. Seriously, that is not what sysfs is for, and is > an abuse of it. > > sysfs is for "one value per file" and should never even get close to a > 4kb limit. If it does, you are doing something really really wrong and > should just remove that sysfs file from the system and redesign your > api. I understand this. And what I addressed is the problem I need to fix. The code is there for almost 10 years, I just find it during my work on bad blocks API fixing. > >> Recently I work on the bad blocks API (block/badblocks.c) improvement, there >> is a sysfs file to export the bad block ranges for me raid. E.g for a md >> raid1 device, file >> /sys/block/md0/md/rd0/bad_blocks >> may contain the following text content, >> 64 32 >> 128 8 > Ick, again, that's not ok at all. sysfs files should never have to be > parsed like this. I cannot agree more with you. What I am asking for was ---- how to fix it ? Thanks. Coly Li
Powered by blists - more mailing lists