linux-ext4 - Re: O_DIRECT as a hint, was: Re: [PATCH] ext4: refuse O_DIRECT opens for mode where DIO doesn't work

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Wed, 27 Apr 2016 12:25:35 +1000
From:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Cc:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	Dmitry Monakhov <dmonlist@...il.com>,
	Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: O_DIRECT as a hint, was: Re: [PATCH] ext4: refuse O_DIRECT opens
 for mode where DIO doesn't work

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 10:16:49PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 01:14:51AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > I've been doing an audit of our direct I/O implementations, and most
> > of them does some form of transparent fallback, including some that
> > only pretend to support O_DIRECT, but do anything special for it at all,
> > while at the same time we go through greast efforts to check a file
> > system actualy supports direct I/O, leading to nasty no-op ->direct_IO
> > implementations as we even got that abstraction wrong.
> > 
> > At this point I wonder if we should simply treat O_DIRECT as a hint
> > and always allow it, and just let the file system optimize for it
> > (skip buffering, require alignment, relaxed Posix atomicy requirements)
> > if it is set.
> 
> That's fine with me, but there ought to be some way for a program to
> query whether a particular file / file system is one where DIO is
> supported, and if so, what the alignment requirements would be.

Yes, that's called XFS_IOC_DIOINFO. We've been saying that this
should be promoted to the VFS for some time, though it might be
better to re-implement it with a different structure that includes
padding and a flags field....

> That
> way applications who care can get the information they need (and we
> can use it for xfstests's _require_odirect :-).

Just return EOPNOTSUPP to XFS_IOC_DIOINFO if direct io is not
supported?

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com
--
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