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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2024 17:40:56 -0800
From: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>, 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 Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 10:19:29AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 10:04:00AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > Hence history teaches us that we should be designing the API around
> > the generic filesystem function required (hard alignment of physical
> > extent allocation), not the specific use case that requires that
> > functionality.
> 
> I disagree.  The alignment requirement is an artefact of how you
> implement atomic writes.  As the fs user I care that I can do atomic
> writes on a file and need to query how big the writes can be and
> what alignment is required.
> 
> The forcealign feature is a sensible fs side implementation of that
> if using hardware based atomic writes with alignment requirements,
> but it is a really lousy userspace API.
> 
> So with John's API proposal for XFS with hardware alignment based atomic
> writes we could still use force align.
> 
> Requesting atomic writes for an inode will set the forcealign flag
> and the extent size hint, and after that it'll report atomic write
> capabilities.  Roughly the same implementation, but not an API
> tied to an implementation detail.

Sounds good to me!  So to summarize, this is approximately what
userspace programs would have to do something like this:

struct statx statx;
struct fsxattr fsxattr;
int fd = open('/foofile', O_RDWR | O_DIRECT);

ioctl(fd, FS_IOC_GETXATTR, &fsxattr);

fsxattr.fsx_xflags |= FS_XFLAG_FORCEALIGN | FS_XFLAG_WRITE_ATOMIC;
fsxattr.fsx_extsize = 16384; /* only for hardware no-tears writes */

ioctl(fd, FS_IOC_SETXATTR, &fsxattr);

statx(fd, "", AT_EMPTY_PATH, STATX_ALL | STATX_WRITE_ATOMIC, &statx);

if (statx.stx_atomic_write_unit_max >= 16384) {
	pwrite(fd, &iov, 1, 0, RWF_SYNC | RWF_ATOMIC);
	printf("HAPPY DANCE\n");
}

(Assume we bail out on errors.)

--D