linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 5/7] xfs: Support atomic write for statx

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: <9c05dfea-339e-44e7-9688-b5206726a1c5@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2024 13:22:27 +0100
From: John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: axboe@...nel.dk, brauner@...nel.org, djwong@...nel.org,
        viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, jack@...e.cz, dchinner@...hat.com,
        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 v8 5/7] xfs: Support atomic write for statx

On 15/10/2024 13:15, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 09:01:40AM +0000, John Garry wrote:
>> Support providing info on atomic write unit min and max for an inode.
>>
>> For simplicity, currently we limit the min at the FS block size. As for
>> max, we limit also at FS block size, as there is no current method to
>> guarantee extent alignment or granularity for regular files.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>
>> Signed-off-by: John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>
>> ---
>>   fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c   |  7 +++++++
>>   fs/xfs/xfs_buf.h   |  3 +++
>>   fs/xfs/xfs_inode.h | 15 +++++++++++++++
>>   fs/xfs/xfs_iops.c  | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>   4 files changed, 50 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c
>> index aa4dbda7b536..e279e5e139ff 100644
>> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c
>> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c
>> @@ -2115,6 +2115,13 @@ xfs_alloc_buftarg(
>>   	btp->bt_daxdev = fs_dax_get_by_bdev(btp->bt_bdev, &btp->bt_dax_part_off,
>>   					    mp, ops);
>>   
>> +	if (bdev_can_atomic_write(btp->bt_bdev)) {
>> +		struct request_queue *q = bdev_get_queue(btp->bt_bdev);
>> +
>> +		btp->bt_bdev_awu_min = queue_atomic_write_unit_min_bytes(q);
>> +		btp->bt_bdev_awu_max = queue_atomic_write_unit_max_bytes(q);
> 
> Consumers of the block layer should never see request_queue.  While there
> is a few leftovers still I've cleaned most of this up.  Please add
> bdev_atomic_write_unit_min_bytes and bdev_atomic_write_unit_max_bytes
> helpers for use by file systems and stacking drivers, similar to the
> other queue limits.

ok, fine

> 
>> +	/* Atomic write unit values */
>> +	unsigned int		bt_bdev_awu_min, bt_bdev_awu_max;
> 
> Nit: While having two struct members declare on the same line using the
> same type specification is perfectly valid C, it looks odd and we avoid
> it in XFS (and most of the kernel).  Please split this into two lines.

sure

> 
>> +	struct xfs_mount	*mp = ip->i_mount;
>> +	struct xfs_sb		*sbp = &mp->m_sb;
>> +
>> +	if (!xfs_inode_can_atomicwrite(ip)) {
>> +		*unit_min = *unit_max = 0;
>> +		return;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	*unit_min = *unit_max = sbp->sb_blocksize;
> 
> Nit: I'd do with the single use sbp local variable here.

I think that you mean do without.

> 
>> +}
>> +
>>   STATIC int
>>   xfs_vn_getattr(
>>   	struct mnt_idmap	*idmap,
>> @@ -643,6 +660,14 @@ xfs_vn_getattr(
>>   			stat->dio_mem_align = bdev_dma_alignment(bdev) + 1;
>>   			stat->dio_offset_align = bdev_logical_block_size(bdev);
>>   		}
>> +		if (request_mask & STATX_WRITE_ATOMIC) {
>> +			unsigned int unit_min, unit_max;
> 
> Nit: XFS (unlike the rest of the kernel) uses tab alignments for
> variables.

ok

> 
> Otherwise this looks good:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
> 

cheers