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: <20240923120715.GA13585@lst.de>
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2024 14:07:15 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	Ritesh Harjani <ritesh.list@...il.com>, chandan.babu@...cle.com,
	djwong@...nel.org, dchinner@...hat.com, 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

On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 09:16:22AM +0100, John Garry wrote:
> Outside the block allocator changes, most changes for forcealign are just 
> refactoring the RT big alloc unit checks. So - as you have said previously 
> - this so-called madness is already there. How can the sanity be improved?

As a first step by not making it worse, and that not only means not
spreading the rtextent stuff further, but more importantly not introducing
additional complexities by requiring to be able to write over the
written/unwritten boundaries created by either rtextentsize > 1 or
the forcealign stuff if you actually want atomic writes.

> To me, yes, there are so many "if (RT)" checks and special cases in the 
> code, which makes a maintenance headache.

Replacing them with a different condition doesn't really make that
any better.