linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 05/10] block: Add core atomic write support

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, 18 Jun 2024 08:51:12 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>
Cc: John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>, axboe@...nel.dk, hch@....de,
	sagi@...mberg.me, jejb@...ux.ibm.com, martin.petersen@...cle.com,
	viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, brauner@...nel.org, dchinner@...hat.com,
	jack@...e.cz, djwong@...nel.org, 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, willy@...radead.org, agk@...hat.com,
	snitzer@...nel.org, mpatocka@...hat.com, dm-devel@...ts.linux.dev,
	hare@...e.de, Himanshu Madhani <himanshu.madhani@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 05/10] block: Add core atomic write support

On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 12:56:01PM -0600, Keith Busch wrote:
> I'm not sure I follow why these two need to be the same. I can see
> checking for 'chunk_sectors % boundary_sectors_hw == 0', but am I
> missing something else?
> 
> The reason I ask, zone block devices redefine the "chunk_sectors" to
> mean the zone size, and I'm pretty sure the typical zone size is much
> larger than the any common atomic write size.

Yeah.  Then again atomic writes in the traditional sense don't really
make sense for zoned devices anyway as the zoned devices never overwrite
and require all data up to the write pointer to be valid.  In theory
they could be interpreted so that you don't get a partical write failure
if you stick to the atomic write boundaries, but that is mostly
pointless.