linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 09/15] block: Add checks to merging of atomic writes

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: <b3ce860d-4a1e-4980-97d9-0e8ad381c689@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2024 12:09:46 +0000
From: John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>
To: Nilay Shroff <nilay@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: axboe@...nel.dk, brauner@...nel.org, bvanassche@....org,
        dchinner@...hat.com, djwong@...nel.org, hch@....de, jack@...e.cz,
        jbongio@...gle.com, jejb@...ux.ibm.com, kbusch@...nel.org,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
        martin.petersen@...cle.com, ming.lei@...hat.com, ojaswin@...ux.ibm.com,
        sagi@...mberg.me, tytso@....edu, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 09/15] block: Add checks to merging of atomic writes

On 12/02/2024 10:54, Nilay Shroff wrote:
> 
> Shall we ensure here that we don't cross max limit of atomic write supported by
> 
> device? It seems that if the boundary size is not advertized by the device
> 
> (in fact, I have one NVMe drive which has boundary size zero i.e. nabo/nabspf/
> 
> nawupf are all zero but awupf is non-zero) then we (unconditionally) allow
> 
> merging.

BTW, if you don't mind, can you share awupf value and device model? I 
have been on the search for NVMe devices which support atomic writes 
(with non-zero PF reported value). All I have is a M.2 card which has a 
4KB PF atomic write value.

But if this is private info, then ok.

Thanks,
John