linux-kernel - Re: Known and unfixed active data loss bug in MM + XFS with large folios since Dec 2021 (any kernel from 6.1 upwards)

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: <20240918-geordert-bedecken-93c97e15e82e@brauner>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2024 11:51:09 +0200
From: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, 
	Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@...sung.com>, Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>, 
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Christian Theune <ct@...ingcircus.io>, linux-mm@...ck.org, 
	"linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	Daniel Dao <dqminh@...udflare.com>, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, clm@...a.com, 
	regressions@...ts.linux.dev, regressions@...mhuis.info
Subject: Re: Known and unfixed active data loss bug in MM + XFS with large
 folios since Dec 2021 (any kernel from 6.1 upwards)

On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 02:29:49PM GMT, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 02:11:22PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > So this issue it new to me as well. One of the items this cycle is the
> > work to enable support for block sizes that are larger than page sizes
> > via the large block size (LBS) series that's been sitting in -next for a
> > long time. That work specifically targets xfs and builds on top of the
> > large folio support.
> > 
> > If the support for large folios is going to be reverted in xfs then I
> > see no point to merge the LBS work now. So I'm holding off on sending
> > that pull request until a decision is made (for xfs). As far as I
> > understand, supporting larger block sizes will not be meaningful without
> > large folio support.
> 
> This is unwarranted; please send this pull request.  We're not going to
> rip out all of the infrastructure although we might end up disabling it
> by default.  There's a bunch of other work queued up behind that, and not
> having it in Linus' tree is just going to make everything more painful.

Now that there's a reproducer and hopefully soon a fix I think we can
try and merge this next week.