linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] io_uring: add support for zone-append

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:   Fri, 10 Jul 2020 18:59:45 +0530
From:   Kanchan Joshi <joshiiitr@...il.com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Kanchan Joshi <joshi.k@...sung.com>,
        viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, bcrl@...ck.org, Damien.LeMoal@....com,
        asml.silence@...il.com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        "Matias Bj??rling" <mb@...htnvm.io>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-aio@...ck.org, io-uring@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        Selvakumar S <selvakuma.s1@...sung.com>,
        Nitesh Shetty <nj.shetty@...sung.com>,
        Javier Gonzalez <javier.gonz@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] io_uring: add support for zone-append

On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 6:39 PM Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 12:50:27PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > It might, if you have IRQ context for the completion. task_work isn't
> > expensive, however. It's not like a thread offload.
> >
> > > Using flags have not been liked here, but given the upheaval involved so
> > > far I have begun to feel - it was keeping things simple. Should it be
> > > reconsidered?
> >
> > It's definitely worth considering, especially since we can use cflags
> > like Pavel suggested upfront and not need any extra storage. But it
> > brings us back to the 32-bit vs 64-bit discussion, and then using blocks
> > instead of bytes. Which isn't exactly super pretty.
>
> block doesn't work for the case of writes to files that don't have
> to be aligned in any way.  And that I think is the more broadly
> applicable use case than zone append on block devices.

But when can it happen that we do zone-append on a file (zonefs I
asssume), and device returns a location (write-pointer essentially)
which is not in multiple of 512b?


-- 
Joshi