linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 05/15] xfs: ignore HW which cannot atomic write a single block

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: <20250430125906.GB834@lst.de>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2025 14:59:06 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>,
	brauner@...nel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, jack@...e.cz,
	cem@...nel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, dchinner@...hat.com,
	linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	ojaswin@...ux.ibm.com, ritesh.list@...il.com,
	martin.petersen@...cle.com, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-block@...r.kernel.org, catherine.hoang@...cle.com,
	linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 05/15] xfs: ignore HW which cannot atomic write a
 single block

On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 07:44:46AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > So this can't be merged into xfs_setsize_buftarg as suggeted last round
> > instead of needing yet another per-device call into the buftarg code?
> 
> Oh, heh, I forgot that xfs_setsize_buftarg is called a second time by
> xfs_setup_devices at the end of fill_super.

That's actually the real call.  The first is just a dummy to have
bt_meta_sectorsize/bt_meta_sectormask initialized because if we didn't
do that some assert in the block layer triggered.  We should probably
remove that call and open code the two assignments..

> I don't like the idea of merging the hw atomic write detection into
> xfs_setsize_buftarg itself because (a) it gets called for the data
> device before we've read the fs blocksize so the validation is
> meaningless and (b) that makes xfs_setsize_buftarg's purpose less
> cohesive.

As explained last round this came up I'd of course rename it if
we did that.  But I can do that later.