linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 00/10] 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: Fri, 5 Apr 2024 11:55:41 +0100
From: John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>
To: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>,
        Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, 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
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 00/10] block atomic writes

On 05/04/2024 11:20, Kent Overstreet wrote:
>>> The thing is that there's no requirement for an interface as complex as
>>> the one you're proposing here.  I've talked to a few database people
>>> and all they want is to increase the untorn write boundary from "one
>>> disc block" to one database block, typically 8kB or 16kB.
>>>
>>> So they would be quite happy with a much simpler interface where they
>>> set the inode block size at inode creation time, and then all writes to
>>> that inode were guaranteed to be untorn.  This would also be simpler to
>>> implement for buffered writes.
>> You're conflating filesystem functionality that applications will use
>> with hardware and block-layer enablement that filesystems and
>> filesystem utilities need to configure the filesystem in ways that
>> allow users to make use of atomic write capability of the hardware.
>>
>> The block layer functionality needs to export everything that the
>> hardware can do and filesystems will make use of. The actual
>> application usage and setup of atomic writes at the filesystem/page
>> cache layer is a separate problem.  i.e. The block layer interfaces
>> need only support direct IO and expose limits for issuing atomic
>> direct IO, and nothing more. All the more complex stuff to make it
>> "easy to use" is filesystem level functionality and completely
>> outside the scope of this patchset....
> A CoW filesystem can implement atomic writes without any block device
> support. It seems to me that might have been the easier place to start -
> start by getting the APIs right, then do all the plumbing for efficient
> untorn writes on non CoW filesystems...

03/10 and 04/10 in this series define the user API, i.e. RWF_ATOMIC and 
statx updates.

Any filesystem-specific changes - like in 
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/20240304130428.13026-1-john.g.garry@oracle.com/ 
- are just for enabling this API for that filesystem.