linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/7] direct-io: even more flexible io vectors

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: <aJFGFBCDFksRO916@kbusch-mbp>
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2025 17:45:24 -0600
From: Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc: Keith Busch <kbusch@...a.com>, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	snitzer@...nel.org, dw@...idwei.uk, brauner@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] direct-io: even more flexible io vectors

On Mon, Aug 04, 2025 at 11:06:12AM -0600, Keith Busch wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 02, 2025 at 09:37:32AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > Did you write some test cases for this?
> 
> I have some crude unit tests to hit specific conditions that might
> happen with nvme.

I've made imporvements today that make these targeted tests fit into
blktests framework.

Just fyi, I took a look at what 'fio' needs in order to exercise these
new use cases. This patchset requires multiple io-vectors for anything
interesting to happen, which 'fio' currently doesn't do. I'm not even
sure what new command line parameters could best convey how you want to
construct iovecs! Maybe just make it random within some alignment
constraints?