On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 09:27:32PM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote: > You've clearly done a nice job with these changes. Looks clean. > > BUT, I'm struggling to just accept that dm-crypt needs to go to these > extra lengths purely because of one bad apple usecase. > > These alignment constraints aren't new. Are there other portions of > Linux's crypto subsystem that needed comparable fixes in order to work > with Microsfot OS initiated IO through a guest? > > You forecast that these same kinds of changes are needed for AEAD and > dm-integrity... that's alarming. > > Are we _certain_ there is no other way forward? > (Sorry I don't have suggestions.. I'm in "fact finding mode" ;) > I don't understand why this is needed, since dm-crypt already sets its logical_block_size to its crypto sector_size. Isn't it expected that I/O that isn't aligned to logical_block_size fails? It's the I/O submitter's responsibility to ensure logical_block_size alignment of all I/O segments. Exactly how is the misaligned I/O actually being submitted here? - Eric _______________________________________________ dm-crypt mailing list dm-crypt@xxxxxxxx https://www.saout.de/mailman/listinfo/dm-crypt
