| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1108111710040.29009@dhcp-27-109.brq.redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 17:10:19 +0200 (CEST)
From: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>
To: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>
cc: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, tytso@....edu, esandeen@...hat.com,
adilger@...06002191d9348c.cg.shawcable.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: Make reads/writes atomic with i_rwlock semaphore
On Mon, 18 Apr 2011, Lukas Czerner wrote:
> Currently concurrent reads/writes are atomic only wrt individual pages,
> however are not on the system call. This may cause read() to return data
> mixed from several different writes, which I do not think it is good
> approach. We might argue that application doing this is broken, but
> actually this is something we can easily do on filesystem level without
> significant performance issues, so we can be consistent. Also POSIX
> mentions this as well and XFS filesystem already has this feature.
>
> This commit adds new rw_semaphore into ext4_inode structure. We take
> read lock every time we read data from a file (via ext4_file_read() or
> ext4_file_splice_read()) and also when we write data in direct io mode,
> since in this mode application should know exactly what it is doing.
> Then we take write lock when we write into a file (via ext4_file_write()
> and ext4_file_splice_write()), except the direct io when we take read
> lock and unaligned direct io which is already serialized in different
> manner. Also we are locking ext4_truncate() as well so we are consistent
> and preserve atomicity.
>
> This should not have any significant performance impact since we still
> allow concurrent reads from the same inode and concurrent writes are
> serialized already by i_mutex. The only type of load which will feel the
> performance hit is the case of writing into an inode while reading from
> it and vice versa. In this case, if reads/writes are exclusive it might
> not need locking, however tracking this would be expensive.
Anyone any thoughts on this one ?
Thanks!
-Lukas
>
> Signed-off-by: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>
> ---
> fs/ext4/ext4.h | 5 ++++
> fs/ext4/file.c | 58 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> fs/ext4/inode.c | 7 ++++++
> fs/ext4/super.c | 1 +
> 4 files changed, 66 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/ext4/ext4.h b/fs/ext4/ext4.h
> index 4daaf2b..037857c 100644
> --- a/fs/ext4/ext4.h
> +++ b/fs/ext4/ext4.h
> @@ -858,6 +858,11 @@ struct ext4_inode_info {
> */
> tid_t i_sync_tid;
> tid_t i_datasync_tid;
> +
> + /*
> + * Semaphore forcing read/write atomicity
> + */
> + struct rw_semaphore i_rwlock;
> };
>
> /*
> diff --git a/fs/ext4/file.c b/fs/ext4/file.c
> index 7b80d54..6c7ed94 100644
> --- a/fs/ext4/file.c
> +++ b/fs/ext4/file.c
> @@ -94,7 +94,7 @@ ext4_file_write(struct kiocb *iocb, const struct iovec *iov,
> unsigned long nr_segs, loff_t pos)
> {
> struct inode *inode = iocb->ki_filp->f_path.dentry->d_inode;
> - int unaligned_aio = 0;
> + int unaligned_aio = 0, direct_io = 0;
> int ret;
>
> /*
> @@ -117,6 +117,7 @@ ext4_file_write(struct kiocb *iocb, const struct iovec *iov,
> } else if (unlikely((iocb->ki_filp->f_flags & O_DIRECT) &&
> !is_sync_kiocb(iocb))) {
> unaligned_aio = ext4_unaligned_aio(inode, iov, nr_segs, pos);
> + direct_io = 1;
> }
>
> /* Unaligned direct AIO must be serialized; see comment above */
> @@ -131,12 +132,19 @@ ext4_file_write(struct kiocb *iocb, const struct iovec *iov,
> inode->i_ino, current->comm);
> mutex_lock(ext4_aio_mutex(inode));
> ext4_aiodio_wait(inode);
> - }
> + } else if (unlikely(direct_io))
> + down_read(&EXT4_I(inode)->i_rwlock);
> + else
> + down_write(&EXT4_I(inode)->i_rwlock);
>
> ret = generic_file_aio_write(iocb, iov, nr_segs, pos);
>
> if (unaligned_aio)
> mutex_unlock(ext4_aio_mutex(inode));
> + else if (unlikely(direct_io))
> + up_read(&EXT4_I(inode)->i_rwlock);
> + else
> + up_write(&EXT4_I(inode)->i_rwlock);
>
> return ret;
> }
> @@ -252,11 +260,51 @@ loff_t ext4_llseek(struct file *file, loff_t offset, int origin)
> return offset;
> }
>
> +static ssize_t
> +ext4_file_read(struct kiocb *iocb, const struct iovec *iov,
> + unsigned long nr_segs, loff_t pos)
> +{
> + struct inode *inode = iocb->ki_filp->f_path.dentry->d_inode;
> + ssize_t size;
> +
> + down_read(&EXT4_I(inode)->i_rwlock);
> + size = generic_file_aio_read(iocb, iov, nr_segs, pos);
> + up_read(&EXT4_I(inode)->i_rwlock);
> + return size;
> +}
> +
> +ssize_t ext4_file_splice_read(struct file *in, loff_t *ppos,
> + struct pipe_inode_info *pipe, size_t len,
> + unsigned int flags)
> +{
> + struct inode *inode = in->f_mapping->host;
> + ssize_t size;
> +
> + down_read(&EXT4_I(inode)->i_rwlock);
> + size = generic_file_splice_read(in, ppos, pipe, len, flags);
> + up_read(&EXT4_I(inode)->i_rwlock);
> + return size;
> +}
> +
> +ssize_t ext4_file_splice_write(struct pipe_inode_info *pipe,
> + struct file *out, loff_t *ppos, size_t len,
> + unsigned int flags)
> +{
> + struct inode *inode = out->f_mapping->host;
> + ssize_t size;
> +
> + down_write(&EXT4_I(inode)->i_rwlock);
> + size = generic_file_splice_write(pipe, out, ppos, len, flags);
> + up_write(&EXT4_I(inode)->i_rwlock);
> + return size;
> +}
> +
> +
> const struct file_operations ext4_file_operations = {
> .llseek = ext4_llseek,
> .read = do_sync_read,
> .write = do_sync_write,
> - .aio_read = generic_file_aio_read,
> + .aio_read = ext4_file_read,
> .aio_write = ext4_file_write,
> .unlocked_ioctl = ext4_ioctl,
> #ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT
> @@ -266,8 +314,8 @@ const struct file_operations ext4_file_operations = {
> .open = ext4_file_open,
> .release = ext4_release_file,
> .fsync = ext4_sync_file,
> - .splice_read = generic_file_splice_read,
> - .splice_write = generic_file_splice_write,
> + .splice_read = ext4_file_splice_read,
> + .splice_write = ext4_file_splice_write,
> .fallocate = ext4_fallocate,
> };
>
> diff --git a/fs/ext4/inode.c b/fs/ext4/inode.c
> index f2fa5e8..769ab0f 100644
> --- a/fs/ext4/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/ext4/inode.c
> @@ -4482,6 +4482,12 @@ void ext4_truncate(struct inode *inode)
> goto out_stop;
>
> /*
> + * We should block reads/writes to that inode so we are sure we are
> + * consistent and reads/writes remain atomic.
> + */
> + down_write(&EXT4_I(inode)->i_rwlock);
> +
> + /*
> * From here we block out all ext4_get_block() callers who want to
> * modify the block allocation tree.
> */
> @@ -4566,6 +4572,7 @@ do_indirects:
>
> out_unlock:
> up_write(&ei->i_data_sem);
> + up_write(&EXT4_I(inode)->i_rwlock);
> inode->i_mtime = inode->i_ctime = ext4_current_time(inode);
> ext4_mark_inode_dirty(handle, inode);
>
> diff --git a/fs/ext4/super.c b/fs/ext4/super.c
> index 8553dfb..2dbe86a 100644
> --- a/fs/ext4/super.c
> +++ b/fs/ext4/super.c
> @@ -895,6 +895,7 @@ static void init_once(void *foo)
> init_rwsem(&ei->xattr_sem);
> #endif
> init_rwsem(&ei->i_data_sem);
> + init_rwsem(&ei->i_rwlock);
> inode_init_once(&ei->vfs_inode);
> }
>
>
--
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists