linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 4/7] xfs: Support FS_XFLAG

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: <20241003130258.GA18099@lst.de>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2024 15:02:58 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>
Cc: axboe@...nel.dk, brauner@...nel.org, djwong@...nel.org,
	viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, jack@...e.cz, dchinner@...hat.com,
	hch@....de, cem@...nel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, hare@...e.de,
	martin.petersen@...cle.com, catherine.hoang@...cle.com,
	mcgrof@...nel.org, ritesh.list@...il.com, ojaswin@...ux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 4/7] xfs: Support FS_XFLAG_ATOMICWRITES

On Thu, Oct 03, 2024 at 01:48:41PM +0100, John Garry wrote:
> On 30/09/2024 13:54, John Garry wrote:
>> @@ -352,11 +352,15 @@ xfs_sb_has_compat_feature(
>>   #define XFS_SB_FEAT_RO_COMPAT_RMAPBT   (1 << 1)		/* reverse map btree */
>>   #define XFS_SB_FEAT_RO_COMPAT_REFLINK  (1 << 2)		/* reflinked files */
>>   #define XFS_SB_FEAT_RO_COMPAT_INOBTCNT (1 << 3)		/* inobt block counts */
>> +#define XFS_SB_FEAT_RO_COMPAT_ATOMICWRITES (1 << 31)	/* atomicwrites enabled */
>> +
>
> BTW, Darrick, as you questioned previously, this does make xfs/270 fail... 
> until the change to a not use the top bit.

With the large block size based atomic writes we shoudn't even need
a feature flag, or am I missing something?