linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 14/14] fs: xfs: Support setting FMODE_CAN_ATOMIC

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: <5e7eb717-d810-4dc3-80b0-3baaa20ca41f@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2024 11:55:59 +0000
From: John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>
To: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc: djwong@...nel.org, hch@....de, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, brauner@...nel.org,
        jack@...e.cz, chandan.babu@...cle.com, axboe@...nel.dk,
        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,
        ritesh.list@...il.com, linux-block@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 14/14] fs: xfs: Support setting FMODE_CAN_ATOMIC_WRITE

On 06/03/2024 21:33, Dave Chinner wrote:
>> +static bool xfs_file_open_can_atomicwrite(
>> +	struct inode		*inode,
>> +	struct file		*file)
>> +{
>> +	struct xfs_inode	*ip = XFS_I(inode);
>> +	struct xfs_buftarg	*target = xfs_inode_buftarg(ip);
>> +
>> +	if (!(file->f_flags & O_DIRECT))
>> +		return false;
>> +
>> +	if (!xfs_inode_atomicwrites(ip))
>> +		return false;
>> +
>> +	if (!bdev_can_atomic_write(target->bt_bdev))
>> +		return false;
> Again, this is static blockdev information - the inode atomic write
> flag should not be set if the bdev cannot do atomic writes. It
> should be checked at mount time

ok

> - the filesystem probably should
> only mount read-only if it is configured to allow atomic writes and
> the underlying blockdev does not support atomic writes...

Let me know if you really would like to see that change also. It does 
seem a bit drastic, considering we can just disallow atomic writes.

Thanks,
John