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]

Message-ID: <5bbf9ff5-83b0-4e93-82c5-f1207d30de9f@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2024 11:42:31 +0100
From: John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>, axboe@...nel.dk, 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 19/06/2024 09:02, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 08:59:33AM +0100, John Garry wrote:
>> In this case, I would expect NOIOB >= atomic write boundary.
>>
>> Would it be sane to have a NOIOB < atomic write boundary in some other
>> config?
>>
>> I can support these possibilities, but the code will just get more complex.
> I'd be tempted to simply not support the case where NOIOB is not a
> multiple of the atomic write boundary for now and disable atomic writes
> with a big fat warning (and a good comment in the soure code).  If users
> show up with a device that hits this and want to use atomic writes we
> can resolved it.

Fine by me.