From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Tal Zussman" <tz2294@columbia.edu>
Cc: tytso@mit.edu, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 1/3] ext4: reject atomic writes on inodes that can't do direct I/O
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2026 17:33:50 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <sashiko-outbox-168461@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261012-ext4-atomic-no-fallback-v2-1-c4b30c60e500@columbia.edu>
> ext4_dio_write_iter() falls back to buffered I/O when the inode can't do
> direct I/O at all, i.e. journaled data, inline data or verity. That
> fallback runs before any atomic write handling, and
> ext4_buffered_write_iter() doesn't look at IOCB_ATOMIC, so an atomic
> write to such an inode is silently done as a plain buffered write with
> no torn-write protection.
>
> ext4_inode_can_atomic_write() makes it worse for journaled data by
> advertising atomic writes for those inodes: statx() reports atomic write
> limits and the file gets FMODE_CAN_ATOMIC_WRITE, so the write passes the
> VFS checks and reaches the fallback. This is reachable with
> data=journal, or with chattr +j on a nodelalloc mount. Inline data
> inodes don't have the extents flag and verity files can't be opened for
> writing, so those are refused before ext4 sees the write, but the
> fallback would still accept them.
>
> Reject IOCB_ATOMIC in ext4_buffered_write_iter(), next to the existing
> IOCB_NOWAIT rejection, so neither fallback into it can complete an
> atomic write non-atomically. Also require ext4_dio_alignment() to be
> nonzero in ext4_inode_can_atomic_write(), so statx() stops advertising
> atomic writes for these inodes and VFS refuses RWF_ATOMIC early. The
> runtime check is still needed, as the journal data flag can be changed
> on an open file.
>
> Fixes: b7987a7d69a4 ("ext4: Support setting FMODE_CAN_ATOMIC_WRITE")
> Reported-by: Sashiko <sashiko-bot@kernel.org>
> Link: https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260909-ext4-atomic-no-fallback-v1-1-5a6b9539c002%40columbia.edu
> Signed-off-by: Tal Zussman <tz2294@columbia.edu>
Sashiko has reviewed this patch and found no issues. It looks great!
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20261012-ext4-atomic-no-fallback-v2-0-c4b30c60e500@columbia.edu?part=1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-10-12 17:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-10-12 17:17 [PATCH RFC v2 0/3] ext4: don't complete atomic writes through buffered I/O Tal Zussman
2026-10-12 17:17 ` [PATCH RFC v2 1/3] ext4: reject atomic writes on inodes that can't do direct I/O Tal Zussman
2026-10-12 17:33 ` sashiko-bot [this message]
2026-10-13 12:27 ` Jan Kara
2026-10-12 17:17 ` [PATCH RFC v2 2/3] ext4: never fall back to buffered I/O for atomic direct writes Tal Zussman
2026-10-12 17:28 ` sashiko-bot
2026-10-13 12:28 ` Jan Kara
2026-10-12 17:17 ` [PATCH RFC v2 3/3] ext4: don't advertise atomic writes for DAX inodes Tal Zussman
2026-10-12 17:25 ` sashiko-bot
2026-10-13 12:30 ` Jan Kara
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=sashiko-outbox-168461@kernel.org \
--to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
--cc=tz2294@columbia.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.