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, 17 Jan 2024 16:16:56 +0000
From: John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: "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, jaswin@...ux.ibm.com, bvanassche@....org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/16] block atomic writes

On 17/01/2024 15:02, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 11:35:47AM +0000, John Garry wrote:
>> As such, we then need to set atomic write unit max = min(queue max
>> segments, BIO_MAX_VECS) * LBS. That would mean atomic write unit max 256 *
>> 512 = 128K (for 512B LBS). For a DMA controller of max segments 64, for
>> example, then we would have 32K. These seem too low.
> 
> I don't see how this would work if support multiple sectors.
> 
>>
>> Alternative I'm thinking that we should just limit to 1x iovec always, and
>> then atomic write unit max = (min(queue max segments, BIO_MAX_VECS) - 1) *
>> PAGE_SIZE [ignoring first/last iovec contents]. It also makes support for
>> non-enterprise NVMe drives more straightforward. If someone wants, they can
>> introduce support for multi-iovec later, but it would prob require some
>> more iovec length/alignment rules.
> 
> Supporting just a single iovec initially is fine with me, as extending
> that is pretty easy.  Just talk to your potential users that they can
> live with it.

Yeah, any porting I know about has just been using aio with 
IO_CMD_PWRITE, so would be ok

> 
> I'd probably still advertise the limits even if it currently always is 1.
> 

I suppose that we don't need any special rule until we support > 1, as 
we cannot break anyone already using > 1 :)

Thanks,
John