| 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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 08:45:43 -0700
From: Curt Wohlgemuth <curtw@...gle.com>
To: Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@...hat.com>
Cc: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>,
Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>,
linux-ext4 List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ext4: Deprecate data=journal mount option
I don't know much about data=journal, but I've been running xfstests
with it, and it's a disaster, given that data=journal doesn't support
O_DIRECT. What kind of testing do people do on data=journal?
And worse, I consistently crash my machine running xfstests 074 on a
data=journal partition. I just repeated this to make sure, on
3.1.0-rc1; I've also seen it with 3.0.0. There's a BUG_ON firing in
jbd2_journal_dirty_metadata():
[ 2174.697692] ------------[ cut here ]------------
[ 2174.698627] kernel BUG at fs/jbd2/transaction.c:1112!
[ 2174.698627] invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] SMP
[ 2174.698627] CPU 11
...
[ 2174.698627] Call Trace:
[ 2174.698627] [<ffffffff8127f9a3>] __ext4_handle_dirty_metadata+0x83/0x120
[ 2174.698627] [<ffffffff8127fd1e>] ? __ext4_journal_get_write_access+0x3e/0x80
[ 2174.698627] [<ffffffff81253a78>] __ext4_journalled_writepage+0x338/0x3e0
[ 2174.698627] [<ffffffff81254244>] ext4_writepage+0x234/0x2f0
[ 2174.698627] [<ffffffff81158327>] __writepage+0x17/0x40
[ 2174.698627] [<ffffffff811597ae>] write_cache_pages+0x1fe/0x650
This is at the J_ASSERT_JH below:
/*
* Metadata already on the current transaction list doesn't
* need to be filed. Metadata on another transaction's list must
* be committing, and will be refiled once the commit completes:
* leave it alone for now.
*/
if (jh->b_transaction != transaction) {
JBUFFER_TRACE(jh, "already on other transaction");
J_ASSERT_JH(jh, jh->b_transaction ==
journal->j_committing_transaction); <===============
J_ASSERT_JH(jh, jh->b_next_transaction == transaction);
/* And this case is illegal: we can't reuse another
* transaction's data buffer, ever. */
goto out_unlock_bh;
}
Curt
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 1:25 AM, Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@...hat.com> wrote:
> On 08/12/2011 09:16 AM, Lukas Czerner wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 11 Aug 2011, Andreas Dilger wrote:
>>
>>> On 2011-08-11, at 9:01 AM, Lukas Czerner wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 28 Jun 2011, Lukas Czerner wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Data journalling mode (data=journal) is known to be neglected by
>>>>> developers and only minority of people is actually using it. This
>>>>> mode is also less tested than the other two modes by the developers.
>>>>>
>>>>> This creates a dangerous combination, because the option which seems
>>>>> *safer* is actually less safe the others. So this commit adds a warning
>>>>> message in case that data=journal mode is used, so the user is informed
>>>>> that the mode might be removed in the future.
>>>>
>>>> Any comments on this ? Is that feasible to remove is someday ?
>>>
>>> I'm less in favour of removing data=journal. Jan made some fixes to
>>> data=journal mode in the last few weeks, which means that people are
>>> still using this.
>>
>> I think that Jan was actually the one who was in favour of this change
>> IIRC. But you're right that there are still some (very little possibly?)
>> users of this. But this change does not remove it, but just let the
>> users know that it might be removed someday, hence discouraging them from
>> using it.
>>
>> Also we were discussing that several times, so I think that letting
>> users know that we are considering it is a good thing.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> -Lukas
>
> I think that this will be very useful to have - users should definitely
> chime in when they see this warning if they are using data journal mode.
>
> The only work load that I know that benefits from a performance point of
> view is one which involves an fsync() heavy, small file creation workload.
> Any workload with larger files tends to lose roughly 50% of the write
> bandwidth under streaming writes since we end up writing everything twice.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ric
>
>
>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Lukas Czerner<lczerner@...hat.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> fs/ext4/super.c | 5 +++++
>>>>> 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/fs/ext4/super.c b/fs/ext4/super.c
>>>>> index 9ea71aa..9d189cf 100644
>>>>> --- a/fs/ext4/super.c
>>>>> +++ b/fs/ext4/super.c
>>>>> @@ -1631,6 +1631,11 @@ static int parse_options(char *options, struct
>>>>> super_block *sb,
>>>>> sbi->s_min_batch_time = option;
>>>>> break;
>>>>> case Opt_data_journal:
>>>>> + ext4_msg(sb, KERN_WARNING,
>>>>> + "Using data=journal may be removed in
>>>>> the "
>>>>> + "future. Please, contact "
>>>>> + "linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org if you are
>>>>> "
>>>>> + "using this feature.");
>>>>> data_opt = EXT4_MOUNT_JOURNAL_DATA;
>>>>> goto datacheck;
>>>>> case Opt_data_ordered:
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
>>>> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
>>>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>>
>>> Cheers, Andreas
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists