linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 08/21] xfs: Introduce FORCEALIGN inode flag

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: <82269717-ab49-4a02-aaad-e25a01f15768@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 07:55:31 +0100
From: John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>
To: Long Li <leo.lilong@...wei.com>, david@...morbit.com, djwong@...nel.org,
        hch@....de, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, brauner@...nel.org, jack@...e.cz,
        chandan.babu@...cle.com, willy@...radead.org
Cc: axboe@...nel.dk, martin.petersen@...cle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, tytso@....edu, jbongio@...gle.com,
        ojaswin@...ux.ibm.com, ritesh.list@...il.com, mcgrof@...nel.org,
        p.raghav@...sung.com, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
        catherine.hoang@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 08/21] xfs: Introduce FORCEALIGN inode flag

On 12/06/2024 03:10, Long Li wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 05:47:33PM +0000, John Garry wrote:
>> From: "Darrick J. Wong"<djwong@...nel.org>
>>
>> Add a new inode flag to require that all file data extent mappings must
>> be aligned (both the file offset range and the allocated space itself)
>> to the extent size hint.  Having a separate COW extent size hint is no
>> longer allowed.
>>
>> The goal here is to enable sysadmins and users to mandate that all space
>> mappings in a file must have a startoff/blockcount that are aligned to
>> (say) a 2MB alignment and that the startblock/blockcount will follow the
>> same alignment.
>>
>> jpg: Enforce extsize is a power-of-2 and aligned with afgsize + stripe
>>       alignment for forcealign
>> Signed-off-by: "Darrick J. Wong"<djwong@...nel.org>
>> Co-developed-by: John Garry<john.g.garry@...cle.com>
>> Signed-off-by: John Garry<john.g.garry@...cle.com>
>> ---
>>   fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_format.h    |  6 ++++-
>>   fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_inode_buf.c | 50 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>   fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_inode_buf.h |  3 +++
>>   fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_sb.c        |  2 ++
>>   fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c            | 12 +++++++++
>>   fs/xfs/xfs_inode.h            |  2 +-
>>   fs/xfs/xfs_ioctl.c            | 34 +++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>   fs/xfs/xfs_mount.h            |  2 ++
>>   fs/xfs/xfs_super.c            |  4 +++
>>   include/uapi/linux/fs.h       |  2 ++
>>   10 files changed, 114 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_format.h b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_format.h
>> index 2b2f9050fbfb..4dd295b047f8 100644
>> --- a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_format.h
>> +++ b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_format.h
>> @@ -353,6 +353,7 @@ xfs_sb_has_compat_feature(
>>   #define XFS_SB_FEAT_RO_COMPAT_RMAPBT   (1 << 1)		/* reverse map btree */
>>   #define XFS_SB_FEAT_RO_COMPAT_REFLINK  (1 << 2)		/* reflinked files */
>>   #define XFS_SB_FEAT_RO_COMPAT_INOBTCNT (1 << 3)		/* inobt block counts */
>> +#define XFS_SB_FEAT_RO_COMPAT_FORCEALIGN (1 << 30)	/* aligned file data extents */
>   
> Hi, John
> 
> You know I've been using and testing your atomic writes patch series recently,
> and I'm particularly interested in the changes to the on-disk format. I noticed
> that XFS_SB_FEAT_RO_COMPAT_FORCEALIGN uses bit 30 instead of bit 4, which would
> be the next available bit in sequence.
> 
> I'm wondering if using bit 30 is just a temporary solution to avoid conflicts,
> and if the plan is to eventually use bits sequentially, for example, using bit 4?
> I'm looking forward to your explanation.

I really don't know. I'm looking through the history and it has been 
like that this the start of my source control records.

Maybe it was a copy-and-paste error from XFS_FEAT_FORCEALIGN, whose 
value has changed since.

Anyway, I'll ask a bit more internally, and I'll look to change to (1 << 
4) if ok.

Thanks,
John