linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 1/3] fs: Introduce buffered_write

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]

Message-ID: <20240130081252.GC22621@lst.de>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2024 09:12:52 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] fs: Introduce buffered_write_operations

> +struct buffered_write_operations {
> +	int (*write_begin)(struct file *, struct address_space *mapping,
> +			loff_t pos, size_t len, struct folio **foliop,
> +			void **fsdata);
> +	int (*write_end)(struct file *, struct address_space *mapping,
> +			loff_t pos, size_t len, size_t copied,
> +			struct folio *folio, void **fsdata);
> +};

Should write_begin simply return the folio or an ERR_PTR instead of
the return by reference?

I also wonder if the fsdata paramter should go away - if a fs needs
to pass forth and back fsdata, generic/filemap_perform_write is
probably the wrong abstraction for it.

Otherwise this looks sane to me.