linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 00/23] Enable block size

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: <ZQ3tH61w+2Sf7AL2@casper.infradead.org>
Date:   Fri, 22 Sep 2023 20:38:07 +0100
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc:     Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
        Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@...sung.com>,
        Pankaj Raghav <kernel@...kajraghav.com>,
        linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        da.gomez@...sung.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, djwong@...nel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, chandan.babu@...cle.com, gost.dev@...sung.com,
        riteshh@...ux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC 00/23] Enable block size > page size in XFS

lOn Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 04:03:56PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> So there's clearly something wrong here - it's likely that the
> filesystem IO alignment parameters pulled from the underlying block
> device (4k physical, 512 byte logical sector sizes) are improperly
> interpreted.  i.e. for a filesystem with a sector size of 4kB,
> direct IO with an alignment of 512 bytes should be rejected......

I wonder if it's something in the truncation code that's splitting folios
that ought not to be split.  Does this test possibly keep folios in
cache that maybe get invalidated?

truncate_inode_partial_folio() is the one i'm most concernd about.
but i'm also severely jetlagged.