linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 00/14] forcealign for xfs

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: <79e22c54-04bd-4b89-b20c-3f80a9f84f6b@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2024 11:15:41 +0100
From: John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>
To: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, Ritesh Harjani <ritesh.list@...il.com>
Cc: chandan.babu@...cle.com, djwong@...nel.org, 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 v4 00/14] forcealign for xfs


> 
>> 1. As I understand XFS untorn atomic write support is built on top
>> of FORCEALIGN feature (which this series is adding) which in turn
>> uses extsize hint feature underneath.
> 
> Yes.
> 
>>     Now extsize hint mainly controls the alignment of both
>>     "physical start" & "logical start" offset and extent length,
>>     correct?
> 
> Yes.

To be clear, only for atomic writes do we require physical block alignment.

> 
>>     This is done using args->alignment for start aand
>>     args->prod/mode variables for extent length. Correct?
> 
> Yes.
> 
>>     - If say we are not able to allocate an aligned physical start?
>>     Then since extsize is just a hint we go ahead with whatever
>>     best available extent is right?

---

> 
>>
>>     - Does the unmapping of extents also only happens in extsize
>>     chunks (with forcealign)?
> 
> Yes, via use of xfs_inode_alloc_unitsize() in the high level code
> aligning the fsbno ranges to be unmapped.
> 
> Remember, force align requires both logical file offset and
> physical block number to be correctly aligned, so unmap alignment
> has to be set up correctly at file offset level before we even know
> what extents underly the file range we need to unmap....
> 
>>       If the start or end of the extent which needs unmapping is
>>       unaligned then we convert that extent to unwritten and skip,
>>       is it? (__xfs_bunmapi())
> 
> The high level code should be aligning the start and end of the
> file range to be removed via xfs_inode_alloc_unitsize(). 

Is that the case for something like truncate? There we just say what is 
the end block which we want to truncate to in 
xfs_itruncate_extents_flags(new_size)  -> 
xfs_bunmapi_range(XFS_B_TO_FSB(new_size)), and that may not be alloc 
unit aligned.

> Hence
> the low level __xfs_bunmapi() code shouldn't ever be encountering
> unaligned unmaps on force-aligned inodes.