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: <20130722125745.GA2827@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 20:57:45 +0800 From: Zheng Liu <gnehzuil.liu@...il.com> To: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com> Cc: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>, Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5 v2] add extent status tree caching On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 08:02:55PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 10:17:42AM +0800, Zheng Liu wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 11:38:31AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 12:19:30PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 01:33:09PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > > > An ioctl is kinda silly for this. Just use O_NONBLOCK when calling > > > > > open() and do the prefetch right in the open call. The open() can > > > > > block, anyway, and what you are trying to do is non-blocking IO with > > > > > AIO, so it seems like we've already got a sensible, generic > > > > > interface for triggering this sort of prefetch operation. > > > > > > > > O_NONBLOCK (either set via open or fcntl) is a possibility, since it's > > > > carefully defined to be unspecified for regular files by SUSv3. It is > > > > quite different from the existing semantics for O_NONBLOCK, though. > > > > Currently, for all file types where O_NONBLOCK is not ignored, open(2) > > > > is guaranteed itself not to block. If we use O_NONBLOCK for regular > > > > files to mean that any necessary metadata blocks required for AIO to > > > > be "A" will be cached, then it will make open(2) much more likely to > > > > block. Also, for all file types where O_NONBLOCK is not ignored, > > > > read(2) will not block but instead return -1 and set errno to EAGAIN. > > > > This would also be a change. > > > > > > > > If we tried to get this new semantics for O_NONBLOCK to be accepted by > > > > the Austin Group for standardization in the future, would they accept > > > > it, or would they say, "this makes me vommit"? I have a suspicion > > > > there reaction might be closer to the latter.... > > > > > > > > If we want a VFS-level API, in my opinion an fadvise() flag would be a > > > > better choice. > > > > > > Sure. Make it an fadvise() flag - just don't add ioctls for things > > > that are generically useful. > > > > > > On second thoughts - you're trying to get the extent map read in. We > > > already have an interface for querying extent maps - fiemap. > > > FIEMAP_FLAG_PREFETCH along with the range of the file you want the > > > extent map prefetched for? > > > > I don't think fiemap is a good interface. The application uses > > fiemap(2) to retrieve extent mapping. > > fiemap is used to query information about extent maps. What it > returns is entirely dependent on the input parameters that are > passed to it. Indeed, from Documentation/filesystems/fiemap.txt: > > "If fm_extent_count is zero, then the fm_extents[] array is ignored > (no extents will be returned), and the fm_mapped_extents count will > hold the number of extents needed in fm_extents[] to hold the file's > current mapping." > > Think about that for a minute. What does the filesystem do with such > an fiemap query when the extent map is not cached? That's right, > *fiemap reads the extent map from disk into the cache* and then > returns the number of extents in the range. > > All I have suggested is adding a flag to make this an *explicit > operation* rather than a side effect of a "count extents" query. I > fail to see any justification for a whole new interface when we > already have a perfectly functional one that already provides the > functionality that is required... Yes, I understand your point of view. We can use fiemap to do that. All I concern is about semantics. When someone mention about fiemap, first I remember is that I can use it to retrieve the extent mappings. But for fadvise, it looks like more naturally. When I look at it, I always think that I can use it to provide a hint to the kernel, and then the kernel will do the rest of things for me. So that is why I prefer to use a fadvise flag rather than use fiemap. Regards, - Zheng -- 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