linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 00/16] block atomic writes

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20240109160223.GA7737@lst.de>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2024 17:02:23 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
	axboe@...nel.dk, kbusch@...nel.org, sagi@...mberg.me,
	jejb@...ux.ibm.com, martin.petersen@...cle.com,
	viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, brauner@...nel.org, dchinner@...hat.com,
	jack@...e.cz, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	tytso@....edu, jbongio@...gle.com, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
	ming.lei@...hat.com, bvanassche@....org, ojaswin@...ux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/16] block atomic writes

On Tue, Jan 09, 2024 at 09:55:24AM +0000, John Garry wrote:
> So a user can issue:
>
> >xfs_io -c "atomic-writes 64K" mnt/file
> >xfs_io -c "atomic-writes" mnt/file
> [65536] mnt/file

Let me try to decipher that:

 - the first call sets a 64k fsx_atomicwrites_size size
 - the secon call queries fsx_atomicwrites_size?

> The user will still have to issue statx to get the actual atomic write 
> limit for a file, as 'xfs_io -c "atomic-writes"' does not take into account 
> any HW/linux block layer atomic write limits.

So will the set side never fail?

> Is this the sort of userspace API which you would like to see?

What I had in mind (and that's doesn't mean it's right..) was that
the user just sets a binary flag, and the fs reports the best it
could.  But there might be reasons to do it differently.