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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <ZBzMql6DkrUWiRKP@google.com> Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2023 15:03:22 -0700 From: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org> To: Chao Yu <chao@...nel.org> Cc: yonggil.song@...sung.com, "linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net" <linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] f2fs: Fix discard bug on zoned block devices with 2MiB zone size On 03/23, Chao Yu wrote: > On 2023/3/13 17:48, Yonggil Song wrote: > > When using f2fs on a zoned block device with 2MiB zone size, IO errors > > occurs because f2fs tries to write data to a zone that has not been reset. > > > > The cause is that f2fs tries to discard multiple zones at once. This is > > caused by a condition in f2fs_clear_prefree_segments that does not check > > for zoned block devices when setting the discard range. This leads to > > invalid reset commands and write pointer mismatches. > > > > This patch fixes the zoned block device with 2MiB zone size to reset one > > zone at a time. > > > > Signed-off-by: Yonggil Song <yonggil.song@...sung.com> > > --- > > fs/f2fs/segment.c | 3 ++- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.c b/fs/f2fs/segment.c > > index acf3d3fa4363..2b6cb6df623b 100644 > > --- a/fs/f2fs/segment.c > > +++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.c > > @@ -1953,7 +1953,8 @@ void f2fs_clear_prefree_segments(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, > > (end - 1) <= cpc->trim_end) > > continue; > > - if (!f2fs_lfs_mode(sbi) || !__is_large_section(sbi)) { > > + if (!f2fs_sb_has_blkzoned(sbi) && > > Could you please add one line comment here for this change? This was merged in -dev a while ago. I don't think this would be critical to rebase it again. > > Otherwise it looks good to me. > > Thanks, > > > + (!f2fs_lfs_mode(sbi) || !__is_large_section(sbi))) { > > f2fs_issue_discard(sbi, START_BLOCK(sbi, start), > > (end - start) << sbi->log_blocks_per_seg); > > continue;
Powered by blists - more mailing lists