linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fs: btrfs: Disable BTRFS on platforms having 256K pages

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:   Fri, 7 Jan 2022 08:13:01 +0800
From:   Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@....com>
To:     Neal Gompa <ngompa13@...il.com>
Cc:     Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
        Chris Mason <clm@...com>, Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>,
        David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        Btrfs BTRFS <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-hexagon@...r.kernel.org, Hector Martin <marcan@...can.st>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: btrfs: Disable BTRFS on platforms having 256K pages



On 2022/1/7 00:31, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 7:05 AM Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@....com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Christophe,
>>
>> I'm recently enhancing the subpage support for btrfs, and my current
>> branch should solve the problem for btrfs to support larger page sizes.
>>
>> But unfortunately my current test environment can only provide page size
>> with 64K or 4K, no 16K or 128K/256K support.
>>
>> Mind to test my new branch on 128K page size systems?
>> (256K page size support is still lacking though, which will be addressed
>> in the future)
>>
>> https://github.com/adam900710/linux/tree/metadata_subpage_switch
>>
>
> The Linux Asahi folks have a 16K page environment (M1 Macs)...

Su Yue kindly helped me testing 16K page size, and it's pretty OK there.

So I'm not that concerned.

It's 128K page size that I'm a little concerned, and I have not machine
supporting that large page size to do the test.

Thanks,
Qu

>
> Hector, could you look at it too?
>
>
>