linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 16/15] xfs: only call xfs_setsize

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: <20250502164424.GO25675@frogsfrogsfrogs>
Date: Fri, 2 May 2025 09:44:24 -0700
From: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: 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 16/15] xfs: only call xfs_setsize_buftarg once per buffer
 target

On Fri, May 02, 2025 at 08:57:26AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, May 01, 2025 at 12:52:08PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > From: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@...nel.org>
> > 
> > It's silly to call xfs_setsize_buftarg from xfs_alloc_buftarg with the
> > block device LBA size because we don't need to ask the block layer to
> > validate a geometry number that it provided us.  Instead, set the
> > preliminary bt_meta_sector* fields to the LBA size in preparation for
> > reading the primary super.
> > 
> > It's ok to lose the sync_blockdev call at buftarg creation time for the
> > external log and rt devices because we don't read from them until after
> > calling xfs_setup_devices.  We do need an explicit sync for the data
> > device because we read the primary super before calling
> > xfs_setup_devices.
> 
> Should we just it for all of them in open_devices now that the sync
> is decoupled from setting the block size?

Yeah.

> Otherwise this looks good, but I guess this should go before the atomic
> writes series in the end?

Yep.

--D