Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261964AbVCIUBT (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Mar 2005 15:01:19 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261733AbVCIUAX (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Mar 2005 15:00:23 -0500 Received: from fire.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:5564 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262145AbVCITyy (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Mar 2005 14:54:54 -0500 Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 11:53:48 -0800 From: Andrew Morton To: suparna@in.ibm.com Cc: pbadari@us.ibm.com, daniel@osdl.org, sebastien.dugue@bull.net, linux-aio@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.6.10 - direct-io async short read bug Message-Id: <20050309115348.2b86b765.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <20050309152047.GA4588@in.ibm.com> References: <1110189607.11938.14.camel@frecb000686> <20050307223917.1e800784.akpm@osdl.org> <20050308090946.GA4100@in.ibm.com> <1110302614.24286.61.camel@dyn318077bld.beaverton.ibm.com> <1110309508.24286.74.camel@dyn318077bld.beaverton.ibm.com> <1110324434.6521.23.camel@ibm-c.pdx.osdl.net> <1110326043.24286.134.camel@dyn318077bld.beaverton.ibm.com> <20050309040757.GY27331@ca-server1.us.oracle.com> <20050309152047.GA4588@in.ibm.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.7 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1277 Lines: 26 Suparna Bhattacharya wrote: > > > Solaris, which does forcedirectio as a mount option, actually > > will do buffered I/O on the trailing part. Consider it like a bounce > > buffer. That way they don't DMA the trailing data and succeed the I/O. > > The I/O returns actual bytes till EOF, just like read(2) is supposed to. > > Either this or a fully DMA'd number 4 is really what we should > > do. If security can only be solved via a bounce buffer, who cares? If > > the user created themselves a non-aligned file to open O_DIRECT, that's > > their problem if the last part-sector is negligably slower. > > If writes/truncates take care of zeroing out the rest of the sector > on disk, might we still be OK without having to do the bounce buffer > thing ? We can probably rely on the rest of the sector outside i_size being zeroed anyway. Because if it contains non-zero gunk then the fs already has a problem, and the user can get at that gunk with an expanding truncate and mmap() anyway. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/