linux-kernel - RE: RE: [PATCH v0] f2fs: allow direct read for zoned device

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: <20220801040607epcms2p82da0594039ba5f1ed77c451e2d13c965@epcms2p8>
Date:   Mon, 01 Aug 2022 13:06:07 +0900
From:   Eunhee Rho <eunhee83.rho@...sung.com>
To:     Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>
CC:     "chao@...nel.org" <chao@...nel.org>,
        "linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net" 
        <linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: RE: [PATCH v0] f2fs: allow direct read for zoned device

>On 07/29, Eunhee Rho wrote:
>> For zoned devices, f2fs forbids direct IO and forces buffered IO
>> to serialize write IOs. However, the constraint does not apply to
>> read IOs.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Eunhee Rho <eunhee83.rho@...sung.com>
>> ---
>>  fs/f2fs/f2fs.h | 2 +-
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
>> index d0f428aef34b..f69731f17402 100644
>> --- a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
>> @@ -4471,7 +4471,7 @@ static inline bool f2fs_force_buffered_io(struct inode *inode,
>>  	 * for blkzoned device, fallback direct IO to buffered IO, so
>>  	 * all IOs can be serialized by log-structured write.
>>  	 */
>> -	if (f2fs_sb_has_blkzoned(sbi))
>> +	if (f2fs_sb_has_blkzoned(sbi) && (rw == WRITE))
>>  		return true;
>
>Actually we don't need to check the device type, but rely on the
>filesystem allocation policy like the below lfs mode. Can we remove this
>line simply?
>
>>  	if (f2fs_lfs_mode(sbi) && (rw == WRITE)) {
>>  		if (block_unaligned_IO(inode, iocb, iter))
>> -- 
>> 2.25.1
>

Yes, I will reflect on the next patch.
Thanks.