netdev - Re: [0/3] POHMELFS high performance network filesystem. First steps in parallel processing.

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:	Sat, 14 Jun 2008 14:10:55 +0400
From:	Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru>
To:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [0/3] POHMELFS high performance network filesystem. First steps in parallel processing.

On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 05:52:38AM -0400, Jeff Garzik (jeff@...zik.org) wrote:
> Neat :)  Thanks for protocol documentation, too.  Do you plan to add 
> write-pages in addition to write-page?  Also, write-page does not appear 
> to be documented.

->writepage() is not needed at all (it does not even exist anymore :),
and only ->writepages() is used.

> Is race-across-directories race-free?  That is a sticky area, see 
> Documentation/filesystems/directory-locking in particular.

POHMELFS relies on VFS to handle that cases, it does not invent own stuff here.
Although there is kind of a path/name cache, it is very trivial and small.

> With the exception of encryption, do you think the POHMELFS client is
> mostly complete, at this point?

I think I will extend its command structure to support checksum (i.e.
add 64bit field unused for now), all other protocol changes are supposed
to be on the highest level (like new commands), so it should not hurt others.

I have to think about locking (file locks on server, not POHMELFS internal
locking :) some more, but so far I do not see, how it can change the picture.

Another task is to move from slab allocation (kmalloc and friends) to
memory pools, like it was done for transaction destinations.

I do not plan serious changes in client (I frankly do not know, what
else I want there :), so, yes, I think that most of the client side is ready.

-- 
	Evgeniy Polyakov
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html