linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 02/11] fs: Allow fine-grained control of folio sizes

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: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 18:29:30 +0000
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: "Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)" <kernel@...kajraghav.com>
Cc: linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	gost.dev@...sung.com, chandan.babu@...cle.com, hare@...e.de,
	mcgrof@...nel.org, djwong@...nel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, david@...morbit.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 02/11] fs: Allow fine-grained control of folio sizes

On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 06:02:44PM +0100, Pankaj Raghav (Samsung) wrote:
> +/*
> + * mapping_set_folio_min_order() - Set the minimum folio order
> + * @mapping: The address_space.
> + * @min: Minimum folio order (between 0-MAX_PAGECACHE_ORDER inclusive).
> + *
> + * The filesystem should call this function in its inode constructor to
> + * indicate which base size of folio the VFS can use to cache the contents
> + * of the file.  This should only be used if the filesystem needs special
> + * handling of folio sizes (ie there is something the core cannot know).
> + * Do not tune it based on, eg, i_size.
> + *
> + * Context: This should not be called while the inode is active as it
> + * is non-atomic.
> + */
> +static inline void mapping_set_folio_min_order(struct address_space *mapping,
> +					       unsigned int min)
> +{
> +	if (min > MAX_PAGECACHE_ORDER)
> +		min = MAX_PAGECACHE_ORDER;
> +
> +	mapping->flags = (mapping->flags & ~AS_FOLIO_ORDER_MASK) |
> +			 (min << AS_FOLIO_ORDER_MIN) |
> +			 (MAX_PAGECACHE_ORDER << AS_FOLIO_ORDER_MAX);
> +}

I was surprised when I read this, which indicates it might be surprising
for others too.  I think it at least needs a comment to say that the
maximum will be set to the MAX_PAGECACHE_ORDER, because I was expecting
it to set max == min.  I guess that isn't what XFS wants, but someone
doing this to, eg, ext4 is going to have an unpleasant surprise when
they call into block_read_full_folio() and overrun 'arr'.

I'm still not entirely convinced this wouldn't be better to do as
mapping_set_folio_order_range() and have

static inline void mapping_set_folio_min_order(struct address_space *mapping,
		unsigned int min)
{
	mapping_set_folio_range(mapping, min, MAX_PAGECACHE_ORDER);
}