linux-kernel - Re: [ANNOUNCE] work tree for untorn filesystem writes

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: <5557bb8e-0ab8-4346-907e-a6cfea1dabf8@kernel.dk>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2024 08:11:52 -0700
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Cc: Carlos Maiolino <cem@...nel.org>, "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
 "Ritesh Harjani (IBM)" <ritesh.list@...il.com>,
 John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>, brauner@...nel.org,
 Catherine Hoang <catherine.hoang@...cle.com>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
 Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
 Ojaswin Mujoo <ojaswin@...ux.ibm.com>, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
 Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] work tree for untorn filesystem writes

On 11/5/24 8:08 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 05, 2024 at 05:52:05AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>
>> Why is this so difficult to grasp? It's a pretty common method for
>> cross subsystem work - it avoids introducing conflicts when later
>> work goes into each subsystem, and freedom of either side to send a
>> PR before the other.
>>
>> So please don't start committing the patches again, it'll just cause
>> duplicate (and empty) commits in Linus's tree.
> 
> Jens, what's going on is that in order to test untorn (aka "atomic"
> although that's a bit of a misnomer) writes, changes are needed in the
> block, vfs, and ext4 or xfs git trees.  So we are aware that you had
> taken the block-related patches into the block tree.  What Darrick has
> done is to apply the the vfs patches on top of the block commits, and
> then applied the ext4 and xfs patches on top of that.

And what I'm saying is that is _wrong_. Darrick should be pulling the
branch that you cut from my email:

for-6.13/block-atomic

rather than re-applying patches. At least if the intent is to send that
branch to Linus. But even if it's just for testing, pretty silly to have
branches with duplicate commits out there when the originally applied
patches can just be pulled in.

> I'm willing to allow the ext4 patches to flow to Linus's tree without
> it personally going through the ext4 tree.  If all Maintainers
> required that patches which touched their trees had to go through
> their respective trees, it would require multiple (strictly ordered)
> pull requests during the merge window, or multiple merge windows, to

That is simply not true. There's ZERO ordering required here. Like I
also mentioned in my reply, and that you also snipped out, is that no
ordering is implied here - either tree can send their PR at any time.

> land these series.  Since you insisted on the block changes had to go
> through the block tree, we're trying to accomodate you; and also (a)
> we don't want to have duplicate commits in Linus's tree; and at the
> same time, (b) but these patches have been waiting to land for almost
> two years, and we're also trying to make things land a bit more
> expeditiously.

Just pull the branch that was created for it... There's zero other
things in there outside of the 3 commits.

-- 
Jens Axboe