linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] btrfs: zstd: add `zstd-fast` alias mount option for fast modes

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: <e3e5f96a-8b46-4e61-a66b-253d2dbe6aa4@gmx.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2025 19:38:07 +1030
From: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@....com>
To: Daniel Vacek <neelx@...e.com>, dsterba@...e.cz
Cc: Qu Wenruo <wqu@...e.com>, Chris Mason <clm@...com>,
 Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>, David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>,
 Nick Terrell <terrelln@...com>, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] btrfs: zstd: add `zstd-fast` alias mount option for fast
 modes



在 2025/4/2 19:07, Daniel Vacek 写道:
> On Tue, 1 Apr 2025 at 00:57, David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz> wrote:
[...]
>>>> I thought this was solid. Or would you rather bail out with -EINVAL?
>>>
>>> I prefer to bail out with -EINVAL, but it's only my personal choice.
>>
>> I tend to agree with you, the idea for the alias was based on feedback
>> that upstream zstd calls the levels fast, not by the negative numbers.
>> So I think we stick to the zstd: and zstd-fast: prefixes followed only
>> by the positive numbers.
>
> Hmm, so for zlib and zstd if the level is out of range, it's just
> clipped and not failed as invalid. I guess zstd-fast should also do
> the same to be consistent.

Or we can change the zlib/zstd level checks so that it can return
-EINVAL when invalid levels are provided.

But to avoid huge surprise, I'd recommend to add warning/error messages
first.

I'm not a huge fan when invalid values are silently clamped, even it's
just an optional level parameter.

Thanks,
Qu

>
>> We can make this change before 6.15 final so it's not in any released
>> kernel and we don't have to deal with compatibility.
>