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: Tue, 28 Nov 2023 21:37:21 -0800
From: "Darrick J. Wong" <>
To: Christoph Hellwig <>
Cc: Dave Chinner <>, Jan Kara <>,
	"Ritesh Harjani (IBM)" <>,,
Subject: Re: [RFC 2/3] ext2: Convert ext2 regular file buffered I/O to use

On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 11:09:17PM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 08:09:44PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > The particular idea I had is to add a u64 counter to address_space that
> > we can bump in the same places where we bump xfs_inode_fork::if_seq
> > right now..  ->iomap_begin would sample this address_space::i_mappingseq
> > counter (with locks held), and now buffered writes and writeback can
> > check iomap::mappingseq == address_space::i_mappingseq to decide if it's
> > time to revalidate.
> So I think moving this to the VFS is probably a good idea, and I
> actually argued for that when the sequence checking was first proposed.
> We just have to be careful to be able to map things like the two
> separate data and cow seq counts in XFS (or anything else complicated
> in other file systems) to it.

TBH I've been wondering what would happen if we bumped i_mappingseq on
updates of either data or cow fork instead of the shift+or'd thing that
we use now for writeback and/or pagecache write.

I suppose the nice thing about the current encodings is that we elide
revalidations when the cow fork changes but mapping isn't shared.

> > Anyway, I'll have time to go play with that (and further purging of
> > function pointers)
> Do we have anything where the function pointer overhead is actually
> hurting us right now?

Not that I know of, but moving to a direct call model means that the fs
would know based on the iomap_XXX_iter function signature whether or not
iomap needs a srcmap; and then it can modify its iomap_begin function

Right now all those rules aren't especially obvious or well documented.
Maybe I can convince myself that improved documentation will suffice to
eliminate Ted's confusion. :)

Also I haven't checked how much the indirect calls hurt.

> One thing I'd like to move to is to merge the iomap_begin and iomap_end
> callbacks into one similar to willy's series from 2020.  The big

Got a link to that?  I need my memory refreshed, having DROP TABLE MEM2020;
pretty please.

> benefit of that would be that (together with switching
> write_cache_pages to an iterator model) that we could actually use
> this single iterator callback also for writeback instead of
> ->map_blocks, which doesn't really work with the current begin/end
> based iomap_iter as the folios actually written through
> write_cache_pages might not be contiguous.

Ooh it'd benice to get rid of that parallel callbacks thing finally.

>  Using the same mapping
> callback would not only save some code duplication, but should also
> allow us to nicely implement Dave's old idea to not dirty pages for
> O_SYNC writes, but directly write them out.  I did start prototyping
> that in the last days, and iomap_begin vs map_blocks is currently
> the biggest stumbling block.

Neat!  willy's been pushing me for that too.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists