linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 10/10] nvme: 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 08:22:03 +0100
From: John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: Kanchan Joshi <joshi.k@...sung.com>, axboe@...nel.dk, kbusch@...nel.org,
        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,
        Alan Adamson <alan.adamson@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 10/10] nvme: Atomic write support

On 18/06/2024 07:49, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> Only NVMe supports an LBA space boundary, so that part is specific to NVMe.
>>
>> Regardless, the block layer already should ensure that the atomic write
>> length and boundary is respected. nvme_valid_atomic_write() is just an
>> insurance policy against the block layer or some other component not doing
>> its job.
>>
>> For SCSI, the device would error - for example - if the atomic write length
>> was larger than the device supported. NVMe silently just does not execute
>> the write atomically in that scenario, which we must avoid.
> It might be worth to expand the comment to include this information to
> help future readers.


OK, will do. I have been asked this more than once now.

John