linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] xfs: fix confused tracepoints in xfs_reflink_end_atomic

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <2ef7123a-cfc7-40b5-beb3-e23db1a0d75f@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2025 14:25:29 +0000
From: John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: alexjlzheng@...il.com, cem@...nel.org, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jinliang Zheng <alexjlzheng@...cent.com>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: fix confused tracepoints in
 xfs_reflink_end_atomic_cow()

On 24/11/2025 14:04, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2025 at 10:57:24AM +0000, John Garry wrote:
>> Commit d6f215f35963 might be able to explain that.
> 
> I don't think so. 

I am just pointing out why it was changed to use a separate transaction 
per extent [and why the cow end handler for atomic writes is different].

> That commit splits up the operation so to avoid
> doing the entire operation in a single transaction, and the rationale
> for this is sound.  But the atomic work showed that it went to far,
> because we can still batch up a fair amount of conversions.  I think
> the argument of allowing to batch up as many transactions as we allow
> in an atomic write still makes perfect sense.
> 

Sure, Darrick knows more about this than me (so I'll let him comment).