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: <20251124143044.GA17164@lst.de>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2025 15:30:44 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, 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 Fri, Nov 21, 2025 at 02:21:34PM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> -               offset &= -DM_BUFIO_WRITE_ALIGN;
> -               end += DM_BUFIO_WRITE_ALIGN - 1;
> -               end &= -DM_BUFIO_WRITE_ALIGN;
> +               align = max(DM_BUFIO_WRITE_ALIGN, bdev_logical_block_size(b->c->bdev));
> +               offset &= -align;
> +               end += align - 1;
> +               end &= -align;
>                 if (unlikely(end > b->c->block_size))
>                         end = b->c->block_size;
> <snip>
> 
> and it fixes the setup which i described in the commit message, but i
> have question.

And this patch, using bdev_logical_block_size looks correct.

> 
> Why in dm-ebs we need to offload partial buffer < ubf size?

I don't understand this question.  What is ubf?  What does partial
buffer mean in this context, and what does offload mean?


Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ