linux-ext4 - Re: [RFC 1/4] fs: Add generic file system event notifications

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 17 Apr 2015 16:37:32 -0600
From:	Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>
To:	John Spray <john.spray@...hat.com>
Cc:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
	Austin S Hemmelgarn <ahferroin7@...il.com>,
	Beata Michalska <b.michalska@...sung.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
	Lukáš Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	kyungmin.park@...sung.com, kmpark@...radead.org,
	Linux Filesystem Mailing List <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/4] fs: Add generic file system event notifications

On Apr 17, 2015, at 11:37 AM, John Spray <john.spray@...hat.com> wrote:
> On 17/04/2015 17:22, Jan Kara wrote:
>> On Fri 17-04-15 17:08:10, John Spray wrote:
>>> On 17/04/2015 16:43, Jan Kara wrote:
>>> In that case I'm confused -- why would ENOSPC be an appropriate use
>>> of this interface if the mount being entirely blocked would be
>>> inappropriate?  Isn't being unable to service any I/O a more
>>> fundamental and severe thing than being up and healthy but full?
>>> 
>>> Were you intending the interface to be exclusively for data
>>> integrity issues like checksum failures, rather than more general
>>> events about a mount that userspace would probably like to know
>>> about?
>>   Well, I'm not saying we cannot have those events for fs availability /
>> inavailability. I'm just saying I'd like to see some use for that first.
>> I don't want events to be added just because it's possible...
>> 
>> For ENOSPC we have thin provisioned storage and the userspace deamon
>> shuffling real storage underneath. So there I know the usecase.
>> 
> 
> Ah, OK.  So I can think of a couple of use cases:
> * a cluster scheduling service (think MPI jobs or docker containers) might check for events like this.  If it can see the cluster filesystem is unavailable, then it can avoid scheduling the job, so that the (multi-node) application does not get hung on one node with a bad mount.  If it sees a mount go bad (unavailable, or client evicted) partway through a job, then it can kill -9 the process that was relying on the bad mount, and go run it somewhere else.
> * Boring but practical case: a nagios health check for checking if mounts are OK.

John,
thanks for chiming in, as I was just about to write the same.  Some users
were just asking yesterday at the Lustre User Group meeting about adding
an interface to notify job schedulers for your #1 point, and I'd much
rather use a generic interface than inventing our own for Lustre.

Cheers, Andreas

> We don't have to invent these event types now of course, but something to bear in mind.  Hopefully if/when any of the distributed filesystems (Lustre/Ceph/etc) choose to implement this, we can look at making the event types common at that time though.
> 
> BTW in any case an interface for filesystem events to userspace will be a useful addition, thank you!
> 
> Cheers,
> John


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