linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 1/6] fs: add hole punching to fallocate

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]

Message-ID: <20110112124431.GP28803@dastard>
Date:	Wed, 12 Jan 2011 23:44:31 +1100
From:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To:	Lawrence Greenfield <leg@...gle.com>
Cc:	Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Josef Bacik <josef@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	xfs@....sgi.com, joel.becker@...cle.com, cmm@...ibm.com,
	cluster-devel@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] fs: add hole punching to fallocate

On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 04:13:42PM -0500, Lawrence Greenfield wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 6:40 PM, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com> wrote:
> > The historical reason for such behaviour existing in XFS was that in
> > 1997 the CPU and IO latency cost of unwritten extent conversion was
> > significant,

.....

> >> (Take for example a trusted cluster filesystem backend that checks the
> >> object checksum before returning any data to the user; and if the
> >> check fails the cluster file system will try to use some other replica
> >> stored on some other server.)
> >
> > IOWs, all they want to do is avoid the unwritten extent conversion
> > overhead. Time has shown that a bad security/performance tradeoff
> > decision was made 13 years ago in XFS, so I see little reason to
> > repeat it for ext4 today....
> 
> I'd make use of FALLOC_FL_EXPOSE_OLD_DATA. It's not the CPU overhead
> of extent conversion. It's that extent conversion causes more metadata
> operations than what you'd have otherwise,

Yes, that's the "IO latency" part of the cost I mentioned above.

> which means systems that
> want to use O_DIRECT and make sure the data doesn't go away either
> have to write O_DIRECT|O_DSYNC or need to call fdatasync().

Seriously, we tell application writers _all the time_ that they
*must* use fsync/fdatasync to guarantee their data is on stable
storage and that they cannot rely on side-effects of filesystem or
storage specific behaviours (like ext3 ordered mode) to do that job
for them.

You're suggesting that by introducing FALLOC_FL_EXPOSE_OLD_DATA,
applications can rely on filesystem/storage specific behaviour to
guarantee data is on stable storage without the use of
fdatasync/fsync. Wht you describe is definitely storage specific,
because volatile write caches still needs the fdatasync to issue a
cache flush.

Do you see the same conflict here that I do?

> cluster file system implementor

Which one?

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