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]

Message-ID: <87bl0o2lgo.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au>
Date:   Fri, 07 Jan 2022 15:55:51 +1100
From:   Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
To:     Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@....com>, 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

Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@....com> writes:
> 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.

Did Christophe say he had a 128K system to test on?

In mainline powerpc only supports 4K/16K/64K/256K.

AFAIK there's no arch with 128K page size support, but that's only based
on some grepping, maybe it's hidden somewhere.

cheers