From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1751507AbdH0TzC (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Sun, 27 Aug 2017 15:55:02 -0400
Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:34450 "EHLO
        aserp1040.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751300AbdH0TzB (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Sun, 27 Aug 2017 15:55:01 -0400
Subject: Re: Kernels v4.9+ cause short reads of block devices
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Andreas Dilger <adilger@dilger.ca>
Cc: Doug Nazar <nazard@nazar.ca>, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Wei Fang <fangwei1@huawei.com>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Mark Fasheh <mfasheh@versity.com>, Joel Becker <jlbec@evilplan.org>,
        Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@kernel.org>
References: <1ae53e17-e455-4f17-0280-b0dae183a449@nazar.ca>
 <CA+55aFzukw-6m0vtm6jDn4kXyfcUQbDFSwt1OOoa9nwG6toycQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <ae3c9d95-5af1-eb2d-c0c1-32ae622f6c54@nazar.ca>
 <CA+55aFzWCSU6A0xmG+TC+K-tN3tZTOo_0dxYy5k=5K+DeTEx8A@mail.gmail.com>
 <FCA4A132-E6E1-4568-8A89-3DE441F189AB@dilger.ca>
 <CA+55aFz9XrD49-w3OpUH-5amPgxqDMD9p3_fdtRt0kpqHKR84g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dave Kleikamp <dave.kleikamp@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <371f0acc-2385-f026-f017-b80cdce305f0@oracle.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2017 14:54:10 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFz9XrD49-w3OpUH-5amPgxqDMD9p3_fdtRt0kpqHKR84g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Source-IP: userv0021.oracle.com [156.151.31.71]
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 08/27/2017 02:47 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Andreas Dilger <adilger@dilger.ca> wrote:
>>
>> Doug,
>> I noticed while checking for other implications of changing MAX_LFS_FILESIZE
>> that fs/jfs/super.c is also working around this limit.
> 
> Note to people: I just committed the patch to update MAX_LFS_FILESIZE.
> 
> I made it use the simpler (and clearer) calculation of
> 
>     ((loff_t)ULONG_MAX << PAGE_SHIFT)
> 
> for the 32-bit case, and I did *not* change any other users.
> 
> The jfs comment was a bit confusing, and talks about "wraps around" at
> 8TB, when that actually happens at 16TB. Yes, if you use a signed
> number for the index, it does wrap at 8TB, but you really shouldn't
> (and the code the jfs comment points to doesn't).
> 
> So I didn't touch that.  Nor did I touch:
> 
>> it also makes sense to fix jfs_fill_super() to
>> use MAX_LFS_FILESIZE instead of JFS rolling its own, something like:
>>
>>         /* logical blocks are represented by 40 bits in pxd_t, etc.
>>          * and page cache is indexed by long. */
>>         sb->s_maxbytes = min((u64)sb->s_blocksize) << 40,
>>                              MAX_LFS_FILESIZE);
> 
> which I agree should be modified. The new MAX_LFS_FILESIZE should be
> the right size, but the difference now is only one page less one byte.

I'll submit a patch to clean up jfs.

Thanks,
Shaggy

> 
>                 Linus
>