linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 07/13] 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: <20240712045615.GA4833@lst.de>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2024 06:56:15 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
	John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>, chandan.babu@...cle.com,
	dchinner@...hat.com, hch@....de, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
	brauner@...nel.org, jack@...e.cz, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	catherine.hoang@...cle.com, martin.petersen@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 07/13] xfs: Introduce FORCEALIGN inode flag

On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 09:20:26AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> I don't think we should error out the mount because reflink and
> forcealign are enabled - that's going to be the common configuration
> for every user of forcealign, right? I also don't think we should
> throw a corruption error if both flags are set, either.
> 
> We're making an initial *implementation choice* not to implement the
> two features on the same inode at the same time. We are not making a
> an on-disk format design decision that says "these two on-disk flags
> are incompatible".

Oh, right forcealign is per-inode.  In that case we just need to
ensure it never happens.  Which honestly might be a bit confusing if
you can reflink for some files and not others, but that's a separate
discussion.