linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 06/11] block: Add atomic write support 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]

Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2024 09:29:02 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>
Cc: axboe@...nel.dk, kbusch@...nel.org, hch@....de, sagi@...mberg.me,
	jejb@...ux.ibm.com, martin.petersen@...cle.com, djwong@...nel.org,
	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-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, tytso@....edu, jbongio@...gle.com,
	linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, ojaswin@...ux.ibm.com,
	linux-aio@...ck.org, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org,
	io-uring@...r.kernel.org, nilay@...ux.ibm.com,
	ritesh.list@...il.com,
	Prasad Singamsetty <prasad.singamsetty@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 06/11] block: Add atomic write support for statx

> +#define BDEV_STATX_SUPPORTED_MASK (STATX_DIOALIGN | STATX_WRITE_ATOMIC)

> +	if (!(request_mask & BDEV_STATX_SUPPORTED_MASK))
> +		return;

BDEV_STATX_SUPPORTED_MASK is misleading here.  bdevs support a lot more
fields, these are just the ones needing special attention.  I'd do away
with the extra define and just open code it.

> +	/* If this is a block device inode, override the filesystem
> +	 * attributes with the block device specific parameters
> +	 * that need to be obtained from the bdev backing inode
> +	 */

This is not the normal kernel multi-line comment format.

> +	if (S_ISBLK(d_backing_inode(path.dentry)->i_mode))
> +		bdev_statx(path.dentry, stat, request_mask);

I know I touched this last, but does anyone remember why we have
various random fixups in vfs_statx and not in vfs_getattr_nosec, where
they we have more of them and also the inode at hand?