linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 14/15] libnvdimm: support read-only btt backing devices

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:	Mon, 22 Jun 2015 12:04:05 -0700
From:	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To:	Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
Cc:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	"linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@...1.01.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/15] libnvdimm: support read-only btt backing devices

On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 11:48 AM, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com> wrote:
> Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de> writes:
>
>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 12:42:44PM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote:
>>> OK, add torn sector detection/recovery to that statement, then.  More
>>> importantly, do you agree with the sentiment or not?
>>
>> I think we're getting on a very slipper slope if we think about
>> application here.  Buffered I/O application must deal with torn
>> writes at any granulairty anyway, e.g. fsync + rename is the
>> only thing they can rely on right now (I actually have software O_ATOMIC
>> code to avoid this, but that's another story).
>
> OK, so you think applications using buffered I/O will Just Work(TM)?  My
> guess is that things will start to break that hadn't broken in the
> past.  Sure, the application isn't designed properly, and that should be
> fixed, but we shouldn't foist this on users as the default.
>
>> Direct I/O using application can make assumption if they know the sector
>> size, and we must have a way for them to be able to see our new
>> "subsector sector size".
>
> You need to let them determine that when NOT using the btt, yes.  Right
> now, I don't think there's a way to determine what the underlying atomic
> write unit is.  That's something the NFIT spec probably should have
> defined.

There are no atomic write units for NFIT to advertise beyond cpu register width.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/