linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND PATCH] dm-ebs: Mark full buffer dirty even on partial write

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: <aR2GjRaNWrfHbDGQ@pc636>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2025 09:57:49 +0100
From: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>,
	Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>,
	Benjamin Marzinski <bmarzins@...hat.com>,
	Alasdair Kergon <agk@...hat.com>, DMML <dm-devel@...ts.linux.dev>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH] dm-ebs: Mark full buffer dirty even on partial
 write

On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 09:53:28AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 09:43:13AM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > Well. LBA is fixed in my case. Just only one format which is 512B.
> > 
> > Whereas the I/O can not be performed by using LBAs sizes. It is fixed
> > and bigger.
> 
> Then it is not an LBA.  The LBA is defined as the minimum block size
> you can do I/O on.  Aka your device is really gravely broken.  What
> device is this and who is selling it?
> 
I define UBS - underlying block size. The lower layer expects BIOs in
that sizes but this is not true.

I am not allowed to disclose and answer your last question.

--
Uladzislau Rezki