linux-ext4 - Re: RFC: iomap write invalidation

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 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:   Tue, 21 Jul 2020 16:52:01 +0100
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc:     Goldwyn Rodrigues <rgoldwyn@...e.de>,
        Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
        Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@....com>,
        Naohiro Aota <naohiro.aota@....com>,
        Johannes Thumshirn <jth@...nel.org>,
        linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        cluster-devel@...hat.com, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
        Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
        linux-man@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: RFC: iomap write invalidation

On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 05:42:40PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 04:31:36PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > Umm, no.  -ENOTBLK is internal - the file systems will retry using
> > > buffered I/O and the error shall never escape to userspace (or even the
> > > VFS for that matter).
> > 
> > Ah, I made the mistake of believing the comments that I could see in
> > your patch instead of reading the code.
> > 
> > Can I suggest deleting this comment:
> > 
> >         /*
> >          * No fallback to buffered IO on errors for XFS, direct IO will either
> >          * complete fully or fail.
> >          */
> > 
> > and rewording this one:
> > 
> >                 /*
> >                  * Allow a directio write to fall back to a buffered
> >                  * write *only* in the case that we're doing a reflink
> >                  * CoW.  In all other directio scenarios we do not
> >                  * allow an operation to fall back to buffered mode.
> >                  */
> > 
> > as part of your revised patchset?
> 
> That isn't actually true.  In current mainline we only fallback on
> reflink RMW cases, but with this series we also fall back for
> invalidation failures.

... that's why I'm suggesting that you delete the first one and rewrite
the second one.  Because they aren't true.