linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 10/11] nvme: Atomic write support

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]

Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2024 08:50:40 +0000
From: John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: axboe@...nel.dk, kbusch@...nel.org, sagi@...mberg.me, jejb@...ux.ibm.com,
        martin.petersen@...cle.com, djwong@...nel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
        brauner@...nel.org, dchinner@...hat.com, jack@...e.cz,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        tytso@....edu, jbongio@...gle.com, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
        ojaswin@...ux.ibm.com, linux-aio@...ck.org,
        linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, io-uring@...r.kernel.org,
        nilay@...ux.ibm.com, ritesh.list@...il.com,
        Alan Adamson <alan.adamson@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 10/11] nvme: Atomic write support

On 20/02/2024 08:31, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Thanks for writing a good commit message!
> 
>> NVMe namespaces may define an atomic boundary, whereby no atomic guarantees
>> are provided for a write which straddles this per-lba space boundary. The
>> block layer merging policy is such that no merges may occur in which the
>> resultant request would straddle such a boundary.
>>
>> Unlike SCSI, NVMe specifies no granularity or alignment rules.
> 
> Well, the boundary really is sort of a granularity and alignment,
> isn't it?

NVMe does indeed have the boundary rule, but it is not really the same 
as SCSI granularity and alignment.

Anyway, I can word that statement to be clearer.

Thanks,
John