linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 13/15] xfs: add xfs_compute_atomic_write_unit

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: <20250501162308.GC25675@frogsfrogsfrogs>
Date: Thu, 1 May 2025 09:23:08 -0700
From: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>
To: John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>
Cc: brauner@...nel.org, hch@....de, 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 13/15] xfs: add xfs_compute_atomic_write_unit_max()

On Thu, May 01, 2025 at 06:00:12AM +0100, John Garry wrote:
> On 01/05/2025 05:30, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 08:52:00AM +0100, John Garry wrote:
> > > On 25/04/2025 17:45, John Garry wrote:
> > > > +static inline xfs_extlen_t xfs_calc_perag_awu_max(struct xfs_mount *mp)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	if (mp->m_ddev_targp->bt_bdev_awu_min > 0)
> > > > +		return max_pow_of_two_factor(mp->m_sb.sb_agblocks);
> > > > +	return mp->m_ag_max_usable;
> > > I think that this should be rounddown_pow_of_two(mp->m_ag_max_usable)
> > > 
> > > ditto for rt
> > > 
> > > I will fix (unless disagree).
> > I don't think this needs fixing.  If there's no hardware support on the
> > device, then we can do any size of atomic write that we want.
> 
> Check man pages for statx:
> 
> stx_atomic_write_unit_min
> stx_atomic_write_unit_max
>               ... These values are each guaranteed to be
>               a power-of-2.
> 
> Same is enforced for size for RWF_ATOMIC.

Ok then.

--D