linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 6/6] block: use chunk_sectors when evaluating stacked atomic write limits

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: <51e56dcf-6a64-42d1-b488-7043f880026e@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2025 17:57:23 +0530
From: Nilay Shroff <nilay@...ux.ibm.com>
To: John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>, agk@...hat.com, snitzer@...nel.org,
        mpatocka@...hat.com, song@...nel.org, yukuai3@...wei.com, hch@....de,
        axboe@...nel.dk, cem@...nel.org
Cc: dm-devel@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-raid@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        ojaswin@...ux.ibm.com, martin.petersen@...cle.com,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
        djwong@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 6/6] block: use chunk_sectors when evaluating stacked
 atomic write limits



On 7/7/25 6:41 PM, John Garry wrote:
> The atomic write unit max value is limited by any stacked device stripe
> size.
> 
> It is required that the atomic write unit is a power-of-2 factor of the
> stripe size.
> 
> Currently we use io_min limit to hold the stripe size, and check for a
> io_min <= SECTOR_SIZE when deciding if we have a striped stacked device.
> 
> Nilay reports that this causes a problem when the physical block size is
> greater than SECTOR_SIZE [0].
> 
> Furthermore, io_min may be mutated when stacking devices, and this makes
> it a poor candidate to hold the stripe size. Such an example (of when
> io_min may change) would be when the io_min is less than the physical
> block size.
> 
> Use chunk_sectors to hold the stripe size, which is more appropriate.
> 
> [0] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/888f3b1d-7817-4007-b3b3-1a2ea04df771@linux.ibm.com/T/#mecca17129f72811137d3c2f1e477634e77f06781
> 
> Signed-off-by: John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>
> ---
>  block/blk-settings.c | 58 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
>  1 file changed, 35 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/block/blk-settings.c b/block/blk-settings.c
> index 761c6ccf5af7..3259cfac5d0d 100644
> --- a/block/blk-settings.c
> +++ b/block/blk-settings.c
> @@ -597,41 +597,52 @@ static bool blk_stack_atomic_writes_boundary_head(struct queue_limits *t,
>  	return true;
>  }
>  
> -
> -/* Check stacking of first bottom device */
> -static bool blk_stack_atomic_writes_head(struct queue_limits *t,
> -				struct queue_limits *b)
> +static void blk_stack_atomic_writes_chunk_sectors(struct queue_limits *t)
>  {
> -	if (b->atomic_write_hw_boundary &&
> -	    !blk_stack_atomic_writes_boundary_head(t, b))
> -		return false;
> +	unsigned int chunk_sectors = t->chunk_sectors, chunk_bytes;
>  
> -	if (t->io_min <= SECTOR_SIZE) {
> -		/* No chunk sectors, so use bottom device values directly */
> -		t->atomic_write_hw_unit_max = b->atomic_write_hw_unit_max;
> -		t->atomic_write_hw_unit_min = b->atomic_write_hw_unit_min;
> -		t->atomic_write_hw_max = b->atomic_write_hw_max;
> -		return true;
> -	}
> +	if (!chunk_sectors)
> +		return;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * If chunk sectors is so large that its value in bytes overflows
> +	 * UINT_MAX, then just shift it down so it definitely will fit.
> +	 * We don't support atomic writes of such a large size anyway.
> +	 */
> +	if ((unsigned long)chunk_sectors << SECTOR_SHIFT > UINT_MAX)
> +		chunk_bytes = chunk_sectors;
> +	else
> +		chunk_bytes = chunk_sectors << SECTOR_SHIFT;
>  

Can we use check_shl_overflow() here for checking overflow? Otherwise,
changes look good to me. I've also tested it using my NVMe disk which
supports up to 256kb of atomic writes. 

Reviewed-by: Nilay Shroff <nilay@...ux.ibm.com>
Tested-by: Nilay Shroff <nilay@...ux.ibm.com>