linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 2/2] ext4: add ioctl EXT4_FLUSH

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, 30 Mar 2021 10:18:39 -0700
From:   "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>
To:     Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Cc:     harshad shirwadkar <harshadshirwadkar@...il.com>,
        Leah Rumancik <leah.rumancik@...il.com>,
        Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ext4: add ioctl EXT4_FLUSH_JOURNAL

On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 01:15:08PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 09:32:23AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > Why not make discarding the journal part of FITRIM then?
> 
> Unfortunately, the fstrim_range structure doesn't have a place for a
> flags field, and FITRIM works by specifying a range of LBA's:
> 
> struct fstrim_range {
> 	__u64 start;
> 	__u64 len;
> 	__u64 minlen;
> };
> 
> I suppose we could do something where some combination of start/len
> means "also checkpoint and discard the journal", but that seems rather
> kludgy.
> 
> > It occurred to me overnight that another way to look at this ioctl
> > proposal is that it checkpoints the filesystem and has a flag to discard
> > the journal blocks too.  Given that we're now only two days away from
> > my traditional bootfs[1] drum-banging day, and there's real user
> > demand[2] for bootloaders to be able to force a journal checkpoint,
> 
> How about if we have an ioctl which is "checkpoint journal", which can
> be file system independent (e.g., defined in include/uapi/linux/fs.h)
> which takes a u32 flags field, where we define a flag bit to mean
> "also discard the unused part of the journal after the checkpoint"?
> 
> It seems that would also solve your bootfs() use case.

Yeah, that's where I was going with this.  I just sent a new review for
the other patch with that level of focus. :)

--D

>       	      	  	      	     - Ted