public inbox for linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>
To: John Garry <john.g.garry@oracle.com>
Cc: axboe@kernel.dk, brauner@kernel.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,
	jack@suse.cz, chandan.babu@oracle.com, dchinner@redhat.com,
	hch@lst.de, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, hare@suse.de,
	martin.petersen@oracle.com, catherine.hoang@oracle.com,
	kbusch@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/7] xfs: Support FS_XFLAG_ATOMICWRITES for forcealign
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2024 09:03:37 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240823160337.GA865349@frogsfrogsfrogs> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d4e9baa3-d7d2-4e89-bc5d-91c85dbd4b8b@oracle.com>

On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 09:39:44AM +0100, John Garry wrote:
> On 22/08/2024 21:38, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > > This (atomicwrites && !forcealign) ought to be checked in the superblock
> > > > verifier.
> > > You mean in xfs_fs_validate_params(), right?
> > xfs_validate_sb_common, where we do all the other ondisk superblock
> > validation.
> 
> I don't see any other xfs_has_XXX checks in xfs_validate_sb_common(), but
> this could be the first...

The superblock verifier runs at a lower level in the filesystem -- it
checks that the ondisk superblock doesn't contain any inconsistent
fields or impossible feature combinations, etc.  Once the ondisk
superblock is verified, the information there is used to set XFS_FEAT_*
bits in m_features, which is what the xfs_has_* predicates access.

Therefore, you have to look at the raw superblock fields, not the
xfs_has_ predicates:

	if ((sbp->sb_features_ro_compat & XFS_SB_FEAT_RO_COMPAT_ATOMICWRITES) &&
	    !(sbp->sb_features_ro_compat & XFS_SB_FEAT_RO_COMPAT_FORCEALIGN)) {
		xfs_warn(mp, "atomic writes feature requires force align feature.");
		return -EINVAL;
	}

The reason for checking this state here is that atomicwrites absolutely
requires forcealign and that dependency will always be true.

> The only other place in which I see a pattern of similar SB feature flag
> checks is in xfs_finish_flags() for checking xfs_has_crc() &&
> xfs_has_noattr2().
> 
> So if we go with xfs_validate_sb_common(), then should the check in
> xfs_fs_fill_super() for xfs_has_forcealign() && xfs_has_realtime()/reflink()
> be relocated to xfs_validate_sb_common() also:

No.  Contrast the above with (forcealign && !realtime), which at least
in theory is temporary, so that should live in xfs_fs_fill_super.  Or
put another way, xfs_fs_fill_super is where we screen out the kernel
being too stupid to support something it found on disk.

--D

> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/20240813163638.3751939-8-john.g.garry@oracle.com/
> 
> Cheers,
> John
> 

  reply	other threads:[~2024-08-23 16:03 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-08-17  9:47 [PATCH v5 0/7] block atomic writes for xfs John Garry
2024-08-17  9:47 ` [PATCH v5 1/7] block/fs: Pass an iocb to generic_atomic_write_valid() John Garry
2024-08-20 17:28   ` Darrick J. Wong
2024-08-17  9:47 ` [PATCH v5 2/7] fs: Export generic_atomic_write_valid() John Garry
2024-08-20 17:28   ` Darrick J. Wong
2024-08-17  9:47 ` [PATCH v5 3/7] fs: iomap: Atomic write support John Garry
2024-08-21 16:58   ` Darrick J. Wong
2024-08-22 15:29     ` John Garry
2024-08-22 20:30       ` Darrick J. Wong
2024-08-30 15:48         ` John Garry
2024-08-30 23:56           ` Darrick J. Wong
2024-09-03 12:43             ` John Garry
2024-08-17  9:47 ` [PATCH v5 4/7] xfs: Support FS_XFLAG_ATOMICWRITES for forcealign John Garry
2024-08-21 17:07   ` Darrick J. Wong
2024-08-22 17:45     ` John Garry
2024-08-22 20:38       ` Darrick J. Wong
2024-08-23  8:39         ` John Garry
2024-08-23 16:03           ` Darrick J. Wong [this message]
2024-08-17  9:47 ` [PATCH v5 5/7] xfs: Support atomic write for statx John Garry
2024-08-21 17:09   ` Darrick J. Wong
2024-08-17  9:47 ` [PATCH v5 6/7] xfs: Validate atomic writes John Garry
2024-08-21 17:10   ` Darrick J. Wong
2024-08-17  9:48 ` [PATCH v5 7/7] xfs: Support setting FMODE_CAN_ATOMIC_WRITE John Garry
2024-08-21 17:11   ` Darrick J. Wong
2024-08-22 18:04     ` John Garry
2024-08-22 20:44       ` Darrick J. Wong
2024-08-23 10:41         ` John Garry
2024-08-23 15:52           ` Darrick J. Wong

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=20240823160337.GA865349@frogsfrogsfrogs \
    --to=djwong@kernel.org \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=brauner@kernel.org \
    --cc=catherine.hoang@oracle.com \
    --cc=chandan.babu@oracle.com \
    --cc=dchinner@redhat.com \
    --cc=hare@suse.de \
    --cc=hch@lst.de \
    --cc=jack@suse.cz \
    --cc=john.g.garry@oracle.com \
    --cc=kbusch@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
    --cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox