linux-kernel - Re: [Patch v9 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, 21 Jun 2024 08:28:58 -0600
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To: John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>, kbusch@...nel.org, 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
Cc: 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
Subject: Re: [Patch v9 00/10] block atomic writes

On 6/21/24 1:59 AM, John Garry wrote:
> On 20/06/2024 22:23, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 Jun 2024 12:53:49 +0000, John Garry wrote:
>>> This series introduces a proposal to implementing atomic writes in the
>>> kernel for torn-write protection.
>>>
>>> This series takes the approach of adding a new "atomic" flag to each of
>>> pwritev2() and iocb->ki_flags - RWF_ATOMIC and IOCB_ATOMIC, respectively.
>>> When set, these indicate that we want the write issued "atomically".
>>>
>>> [...]
>> Applied, thanks!
> 
> Thanks Jens.
> 
> JFYI, we will probably notice a trivial conflict in
> include/uapi/linux/stat.h when merging, as I fixed a comment there
> which went into v6.10-rc4 . To resolve, the version in this series can
> be used, as it also fixes that comment.

I did notice and resolved it when I merged it into my for-next branch.
And then was kind of annoyed when I noticed it was caused by a patch
from yourself as well, surely that should either have been part of the
series, just ignored for -git, or done after the fact. Kind of pointless
to cause conflicts with your own series right when it needs ready to go
into the for-next tree.

-- 
Jens Axboe