linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/10] fallocate: introduce FALLOC_FL_WRITE

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20250616-wasser-replizieren-c47bcfaa418a@brauner>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2025 16:27:07 +0200
From: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
To: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
Cc: Zhang Yi <yi.zhang@...weicloud.com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org, dm-devel@...ts.linux.dev, 
	linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hch@....de, tytso@....edu, djwong@...nel.org, 
	john.g.garry@...cle.com, bmarzins@...hat.com, chaitanyak@...dia.com, 
	shinichiro.kawasaki@....com, yi.zhang@...wei.com, chengzhihao1@...wei.com, yukuai3@...wei.com, 
	yangerkun@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] fallocate: introduce FALLOC_FL_WRITE_ZEROES flag

On Mon, Jun 09, 2025 at 09:47:13PM -0400, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> 
> Zhang,
> 
> > Changes since RFC v4:
> >  - Rebase codes on 6.16-rc1.
> >  - Add a new queue_limit flag, and change the write_zeroes_unmap sysfs
> >    interface to RW mode. User can disable the unmap write zeroes
> >    operation by writing '0' to it when the operation is slow.
> >  - Modify the documentation of write_zeroes_unmap sysfs interface as
> >    Martin suggested.
> >  - Remove the statx interface.
> >  - Make the bdev and ext4 don't allow to submit FALLOC_FL_WRITE_ZEROES
> >    if the block device does not enable the unmap write zeroes operation,
> >    it should return -EOPNOTSUPP.
> 
> This looks OK to me as long as the fs folks agree on the fallocate()
> semantics.

That looks overall fine. Should I queue this up in the vfs tree?