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:   Wed, 21 Jun 2017 21:07:57 -0700
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To:     Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Rudoff, Andy" <andy.rudoff@...el.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>,
        Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] mm, fs: daxfile, an interface for
 byte-addressable updates to pmem

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 5:02 PM, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com> wrote:
>
> You seem to be calling the "fdatasync on every page fault" the

It's the opposite of fdatasync().  It needs to sync whatever metadata
is needed to find the data.  The data doesn't need to be synced.

> "lightweight" option. That's the brute-force-with-big-hammer
> solution - it's most definitely not lightweight as every page fault
> has extra overhead to call ->fsync(). Sure, the API is simple, but
> the runtime overhead is significant.

It's lightweight in terms of its impact on the filesystem.  It doesn't
need any persistent setup -- you can just use it.

> Even if you are considering the complexity of the APIs, it's hardly
> a "heavyweight" when it only requires a single call to fallocate()
> before mmap() to set up the immutable extents on the file...

So what would the exact semantics be?  In particular, how can it fail?
 If I do the fallocate(), is it absolutely promised that the extent
map won't get out of sync between what mmap sees and what's on disk?
Do user programs need to worry about colliding with each other when
one does fallocate() to DAXify a file and the other does fallocate()
to unDAXify a file?  Does this particular fallocate() call still keep
its effect after a reboot?

These issues are why I think it would be nicer to have an API that
makes a particular mapping or fd be unconditionally *correct* and then
to provide something else that makes it avoid latency spikes.

Is there an actual concrete proposal that's reviewable?

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ