linux-ext4 - Re: [RFC v6 08/10] iomap/xfs: Eliminate the iomap

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]

Date:   Wed, 18 Jan 2023 20:57:24 +0100
From:   Andreas Grünbacher <andreas.gruenbacher@...il.com>
To:     "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
        Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@...hat.com>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@....com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, cluster-devel@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC v6 08/10] iomap/xfs: Eliminate the iomap_valid handler

Am Mi., 18. Jan. 2023 um 20:04 Uhr schrieb Darrick J. Wong <djwong@...nel.org>:
>
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 11:21:38PM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 15, 2023 at 09:29:58AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > I don't have any objections to pulling everything except patches 8 and
> > > 10 for testing this week.
> >
> > That would be great.  I now have a series to return the ERR_PTR
> > from __filemap_get_folio which will cause a minor conflict, but
> > I think that's easy enough for Linux to handle.
>
> Ok, done.
>
> > >
> > > 1. Does zonefs need to revalidate mappings?  The mappings are 1:1 so I
> > > don't think it does, but OTOH zone pointer management might complicate
> > > that.
> >
> > Adding Damien.
> >
> > > 2. How about porting the writeback iomap validation to use this
> > > mechanism?  (I suspect Dave might already be working on this...)
> >
> > What is "this mechanism"?  Do you mean the here removed ->iomap_valid
> > ?   writeback calls into ->map_blocks for every block while under the
> > folio lock, so the validation can (and for XFS currently is) done
> > in that.  Moving it out into a separate method with extra indirect
> > functiona call overhead and interactions between the methods seems
> > like a retrograde step to me.
>
> Sorry, I should've been more specific -- can xfs writeback use the
> validity cookie in struct iomap and thereby get rid of struct
> xfs_writepage_ctx entirely?

Already asked and answered in the same thread:

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20230109225453.GQ1971568@dread.disaster.area/

> > > 2. Do we need to revalidate mappings for directio writes?  I think the
> > > answer is no (for xfs) because the ->iomap_begin call will allocate
> > > whatever blocks are needed and truncate/punch/reflink block on the
> > > iolock while the directio writes are pending, so you'll never end up
> > > with a stale mapping.
> >
> > Yes.
>
> Er... yes as in "Yes, we *do* need to revalidate directio writes", or
> "Yes, your reasoning is correct"?
>
> --D