Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Fri, 15 Jul 2022 07:48:28 -0400
From:   "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
To:     Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc:     "Kiselev, Oleg" <okiselev@amazon.com>,
        "linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ext4: avoid resizing to a partial cluster size
Message-ID: <YtFUDIk589glIHSf@mit.edu>
References: <9CDF7393-5645-4E8A-9D68-01CF7F4C4955@amazon.com>
 <20220714135231.aull3vo44yfa6azg@quack3>
 <0CC0FCE1-F8A2-4966-B848-AD2D9DF9A713@amazon.com>
 <20220715093518.tzl2upullc5pymo2@quack3>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20220715093518.tzl2upullc5pymo2@quack3>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 11:35:18AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > available for the filesystem having an “odd” size.  Our preference is for
> > the utilities to silently fix the fs size down to the nearest “safe” size
> > rather than get sporadic errors.   I had submitted a patch for resize2fs
> > that rounds the fs target size down to the nearest cluster boundary.  In
> > principle it’s similar to the size-rounding that is done now for 4K
> > blocks.   Using updated e2fsprogs isn’t mandatory for using ext4 in the
> > newer kernels, so making the kernel safe(r) for bigalloc resizes seems
> > like a good idea.
> 
> I see. Honestly, doing automatic "fixups" of passed arguments to syscalls /
> ioctls has bitten us more than once in the past. That's why I'm cautious
> about that. It seems convenient initially but then when contraints change
> (e.g. you'd want to be rounding to a different number) you suddently find
> you have no way to extend the API without breaking some userspace. That's
> why I prefer to put these "rounding convenience" functions into userspace.
> 
> That being said I don't feel too strongly about this particular case so I
> guess I'll defer the final decision about the policy to Ted.

In this particular case, a file system whose size is not a multiple of
cluster size is never going to be valid, so having the resize ioctl
round down the requested size to largest valid size seems to be a safe
(and useful) thing to do.

						- Ted