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: <ZzZYmTuSsHN-M0Of@rh>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2024 07:07:53 +1100
From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>
To: Long Li <leo.lilong@...wei.com>
Cc: John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>,
	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	Ritesh Harjani <ritesh.list@...il.com>, chandan.babu@...cle.com,
	djwong@...nel.org, hch@....de, 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 Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 08:48:21PM +0800, Long Li wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2024 at 11:12:47AM +0100, John Garry wrote:
> > On 17/09/2024 23:27, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > > # xfs_bmap -vvp  mnt/file
> > > > mnt/file:
> > > > EXT: FILE-OFFSET      BLOCK-RANGE      AG AG-OFFSET        TOTAL FLAGS
> > > >    0: [0..15]:         384..399          0 (384..399)          16 010000
> > > >    1: [16..31]:        400..415          0 (400..415)          16 000000
> > > >    2: [32..127]:       416..511          0 (416..511)          96 010000
> > > >    3: [128..255]:      256..383          0 (256..383)         128 000000
> > > > FLAG Values:
> > > >     0010000 Unwritten preallocated extent
> > > > 
> > > > Here we have unaligned extents wrt extsize.
> > > > 
> > > > The sub-alloc unit zeroing would solve that - is that what you would still
> > > > advocate (to solve that issue)?
> > > Yes, I thought that was already implemented for force-align with the
> > > DIO code via the extsize zero-around changes in the iomap code. Why
> > > isn't that zero-around code ensuring the correct extent layout here?
> > 
> > I just have not included the extsize zero-around changes here. They were
> > just grouped with the atomic writes support, as they were added specifically
> > for the atomic writes support. Indeed - to me at least - it is strange that
> > the DIO code changes are required for XFS forcealign implementation. And,
> > even if we use extsize zero-around changes for DIO path, what about buffered
> > IO?
> 
> 
> I've been reviewing and testing the XFS atomic write patch series. Since
> there haven't been any new responses to the previous discussions on this
> issue, I'd like to inquire about the buffered IO problem with force-aligned
> files, which is a scenario we might encounter.
> 
> Consider a case where the file supports force-alignment with a 64K extent size,
> and the system page size is 4K. Take the following commands as an example:
> 
> xfs_io  -c "pwrite 64k 64k" mnt/file
> xfs_io  -c "pwrite 8k 8k" mnt/file
> 
> If unaligned unwritten extents are not permitted, we need to zero out the
> sub-allocation units for ranges [0, 8K] and [16K, 64K] to prevent stale
> data. While this can be handled relatively easily in direct I/O scenarios,
> it presents significant challenges in buffered I/O operations. The main
> difficulty arises because the extent size (64K) is larger than the page
> size (4K), and our current code base has substantial limitations in handling
> such cases.
> 
> Any thoughts on this?

Large folios in the page cache solve this problem. i.e. it's the
same problem that block size > page size support had to solve.

-Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
dchinner@...hat.com