linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v2 03/83] Add super.h.

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:   Thu, 15 Mar 2018 14:04:17 -0600
From:   Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>
To:     Andiry Xu <jix024@....ucsd.edu>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
        Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        "Rudoff, Andy" <andy.rudoff@...el.com>, coughlan@...hat.com,
        Steven Swanson <swanson@...ucsd.edu>,
        Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>,
        swhiteho@...hat.com, miklos@...redi.hu,
        Jian Xu <andiry.xu@...il.com>, Andiry Xu <jix024@...ucsd.edu>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 03/83] Add super.h.

On Mar 15, 2018, at 11:51 AM, Andiry Xu <jix024@....ucsd.edu> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 2:05 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 7:11 AM, Andiry Xu <jix024@....ucsd.edu> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 9:54 PM, Darrick J. Wong
>>> <darrick.wong@...cle.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 10:17:44AM -0800, Andiry Xu wrote:
>> 
>>>>> +     /* s_mtime and s_wtime should be together and their order should not be
>>>>> +      * changed. we use an 8 byte write to update both of them atomically
>>>>> +      */
>>>>> +     __le32          s_mtime;                /* mount time */
>>>>> +     __le32          s_wtime;                /* write time */
>>>> 
>>>> Hmmm, 32-bit timestamps?  2038 isn't that far away...
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> I will try fixing this in the next version.
>> 
>> I would also recommend adding nanosecond-resolution timestamps.
>> In theory, a signed 64-bit nanosecond field is sufficient for each timestamp
>> (it's good for several hundred years), but the more common format uses
>> 64-bit seconds and 32-bit nanoseconds in other file systems.
>> 
>> Unfortunately it looks, you will have to come up with a more sophisticated
>> update method above, even if you leave out the nanoseconds, you can't
>> easily rely on a 16-byte atomic update across architectures to deal with
>> the two 64-bit timestamps. For the superblock fields, you might be able
>> to get away with using second resolution, and then encoding the
>> timestamps as a signed 64-bit 'mkfs time' along with two unsigned
>> 32-bit times added on top, which gives you a range of 136 years mount
>> a file system after its creation.
>> 
> 
> I will take a look at other file systems.
> 
> Superblock mtime is not a big problem as it is updated rarely. 64-bit
> seconds and 32-bit nanoseconds make the inode and log entry bigger,
> and updating file->atime cannot be done with a single 64bit update.
> That may be annoying and needs to use journaling.

If the 64-bit atomicity was really a performance issue, you could do
something like:

	__u32	time_high = seconds >> 32;
	__u64	time_low = seconds << 32 | nanoseconds;

and then you only need to update time_high with a journal operation if it
has changed from the current time_high value (about once every 140 years),
and the time_low can be set atomically.  It needs a few extra cycles each
time (hidden with an unlikely()) vs. just setting both, but that is a win
if it avoids other CPU or IO overhead.

Cheers, Andreas






Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (874 bytes)