linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] fs: introduce FALLOC_FL_FORCE

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: <20250106173133.GB6174@frogsfrogsfrogs>
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2025 09:31:33 -0800
From: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Zhang Yi <yi.zhang@...weicloud.com>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
	brauner@...nel.org, jack@...e.cz, adilger.kernel@...ger.ca,
	yi.zhang@...wei.com, chengzhihao1@...wei.com, yukuai3@...wei.com,
	yangerkun@...wei.com, Sai Chaitanya Mitta <mittachaitu@...il.com>,
	linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] fs: introduce FALLOC_FL_FORCE_ZERO to fallocate

On Mon, Jan 06, 2025 at 08:27:49AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 06, 2025 at 11:17:32AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > Yes.  And we might decide that it should be done using some kind of
> > ioctl, such as BLKDISCARD, as opposed to a new fallocate operation,
> > since it really isn't a filesystem metadata operation, just as
> > BLKDISARD isn't.  The other side of the argument is that ioctls are
> > ugly, and maybe all new such operations should be plumbed through via
> > fallocate as opposed to adding a new ioctl.  I don't have strong
> > feelings on this, although I *do* belive that whatever interface we
> > use, whether it be fallocate or ioctl, it should be supported by block
> > devices and files in a file system, to make life easier for those
> > databases that want to support running on a raw block device (for
> > full-page advertisements on the back cover of the Businessweek
> > magazine) or on files (which is how 99.9% of all real-world users
> > actually run enterprise databases.  :-)
> 
> If you want the operation to work for files it needs to be routed
> through the file system as otherwise you can't make it actually
> work coherently.  While you could add a new ioctl that works on a
> file fallocate seems like a much better interface.  Supporting it
> on a block device is trivial, as it can mostly (or even entirely
> depending on the exact definition of the interface) reuse the existing
> zero range / punch hole code.

I think we should wire it up as a new FALLOC_FL_WRITE_ZEROES mode,
document very vigorously that it exists to facilitate pure overwrites
(specifically that it returns EOPNOTSUPP for always-cow files), and not
add more ioctls.

(That said, doesn't BLKZEROOUT already do this for bdevs?)

--D