linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v13 13/13] dm: add power-of-2 target for zoned devices with non power-of-2 zone sizes

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <YyS6mUzqjq9P0+OG@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 16 Sep 2022 14:04:09 -0400
From:   Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>
To:     Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@...sung.com>
Cc:     hch@....de, agk@...hat.com, damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com,
        axboe@...nel.dk, snitzer@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Johannes.Thumshirn@....com, linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org,
        pankydev8@...il.com, matias.bjorling@....com,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org, bvanassche@....org,
        gost.dev@...sung.com, dm-devel@...hat.com, hare@...e.de,
        jaegeuk@...nel.org, Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 13/13] dm: add power-of-2 target for zoned devices
 with non power-of-2 zone sizes

On Fri, Sep 16 2022 at  1:57P -0400,
Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@...sung.com> wrote:

> >>
> >> Are you certain you shouldn't at least be exposing a different
> >> logical_block_size to upper layers?
> >>
> > To be honest, I tested my patches in QEMU with 4k Logical block size and on
> > a device with 4k LBA size.
> > 
> > I did a quick test with 512B LBA size in QEMU, and I didn't see any
> > failures when I ran my normal test suite.
> > 
> > Do you see any problem with exposing the same LBA as the underlying device?
> > 
> 
> Do you see any issues here? If not, I can send the next version with the
> other two changes you suggested.

That's fine, I just thought there might be special considerations
needed.  But if yo've tested it and upper layers work as expected then
obviously my concern wasn't applicable.

Thanks,
Mike