linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/6] fs: xfs: Support atomic write for statx

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: <9b966c59-3b9f-4093-9913-c9b8a3469a8b@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2024 13:10:54 +0000
From: John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>
To: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>
Cc: hch@....de, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, brauner@...nel.org,
        dchinner@...hat.com, jack@...e.cz, chandan.babu@...cle.com,
        martin.petersen@...cle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        tytso@....edu, jbongio@...gle.com, ojaswin@...ux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] fs: xfs: Support atomic write for statx

On 02/02/2024 18:05, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 02:26:43PM +0000, John Garry wrote:
>> Support providing info on atomic write unit min and max for an inode.
>>
>> For simplicity, currently we limit the min at the FS block size, but a
>> lower limit could be supported in future.
>>
>> The atomic write unit min and max is limited by the guaranteed extent
>> alignment for the inode.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>
>> ---
>>   fs/xfs/xfs_iops.c | 45 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>   fs/xfs/xfs_iops.h |  4 ++++
>>   2 files changed, 49 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_iops.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_iops.c
>> index a0d77f5f512e..0890d2f70f4d 100644
>> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_iops.c
>> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_iops.c
>> @@ -546,6 +546,44 @@ xfs_stat_blksize(
>>   	return PAGE_SIZE;
>>   }
>>   
>> +void xfs_get_atomic_write_attr(
> 
> static void?

We use this in the iomap and statx code

> 
>> +	struct xfs_inode *ip,
>> +	unsigned int *unit_min,
>> +	unsigned int *unit_max)
> 
> Weird indenting here.

hmmm... I thought that this was the XFS style

Can you show how it should look?

> 
>> +{
>> +	xfs_extlen_t		extsz = xfs_get_extsz(ip);
>> +	struct xfs_buftarg	*target = xfs_inode_buftarg(ip);
>> +	struct block_device	*bdev = target->bt_bdev;
>> +	unsigned int		awu_min, awu_max, align;
>> +	struct request_queue	*q = bdev->bd_queue;
>> +	struct xfs_mount	*mp = ip->i_mount;
>> +
>> +	/*
>> +	 * Convert to multiples of the BLOCKSIZE (as we support a minimum
>> +	 * atomic write unit of BLOCKSIZE).
>> +	 */
>> +	awu_min = queue_atomic_write_unit_min_bytes(q);
>> +	awu_max = queue_atomic_write_unit_max_bytes(q);
>> +
>> +	awu_min &= ~mp->m_blockmask;
> 
> Why do you round /down/ the awu_min value here?

This is just to ensure that we returning *unit_min >= BLOCKSIZE

For example, if awu_min, max 1K, 64K from the bdev, we now have 0 and 
64K. And below this gives us awu_min, max of 4k, 64k.

Maybe there is a more logical way of doing this.

> 
>> +	awu_max &= ~mp->m_blockmask;
> 
> Actually -- since the atomic write units have to be powers of 2, why is
> rounding needed here at all?

Sure, but the bdev can report a awu_min < BLOCKSIZE

> 
>> +
>> +	align = XFS_FSB_TO_B(mp, extsz);
>> +
>> +	if (!awu_max || !xfs_inode_atomicwrites(ip) || !align ||
>> +	    !is_power_of_2(align)) {
> 
> ...and if you take my suggestion to make a common helper to validate the
> atomic write unit parameters, this can collapse into:
> 
> 	alloc_unit_bytes = xfs_inode_alloc_unitsize(ip);
> 	if (!xfs_inode_has_atomicwrites(ip) ||
> 	    !bdev_validate_atomic_write(bdev, alloc_unit_bytes))  > 		/* not supported, return zeroes */
> 		*unit_min = 0;
> 		*unit_max = 0;
> 		return;
> 	}
> 
> 	*unit_min = max(alloc_unit_bytes, awu_min);
> 	*unit_max = min(alloc_unit_bytes, awu_max);

Again, we need to ensure that *unit_min >= BLOCKSIZE

Thanks,
John