linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH v4 5/7] fs: prioritize and separate direct_io from dax

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:	Thu, 5 May 2016 09:24:20 -0700
From:	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:	Boaz Harrosh <boaz@...xistor.com>, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	XFS Developers <xfs@....sgi.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>,
	Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@...1.01.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 5/7] fs: prioritize and separate direct_io from dax_io

On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 8:22 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 08:15:32AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
>> > Agreed - makig O_DIRECT less direct than not having it is plain stupid,
>> > and I somehow missed this initially.
>>
>> Of course I disagree because like Dave argues in the msync case we
>> should do the correct thing first and make it fast later, but also
>> like Dave this arguing in circles is getting tiresome.
>
> We should do the right thing first, and make it fast later.  But this
> proposal is not getting it right - it still does not handle errors
> for the fast path, but magically makes it work for direct I/O by
> in general using a less optional path for O_DIRECT.  It's getting the
> worst of all choices.
>
> As far as I can tell the only sensible option is to:
>
>  - always try dax-like I/O first
>  - have a custom get_user_pages + rw_bytes fallback handles bad blocks
>    when hitting EIO

If you're on board with more special fallbacks for dax-capable block
devices that indeed opens up the thinking.  The O_DIRECT approach was
meant to keep the error clearing model close to the traditional block
device case, but yes that does constrain the implementation in
sub-optimal ways.

However, we still have the alignment problem in the rw_bytes case, how
do we communicate to the application that only writes with a certain
size/alignment will clear errors?  That forced alignment assumption
was the other appeal of O_DIRECT.  Perhaps we can at least start with
hole punching and block reallocation as the error clearing method
while we think more about the write-to-clear case?

> And then we need to sort out the concurrent write synchronization.
> Again there I think we absolutely have to obey Posix for the !O_DIRECT
> case and can avoid it for O_DIRECT, similar to the existing non-DAX
> semantics.  If we want any special additional semantics we _will_ need
> a special O_DAX flag.

Ok, makes sense.
--
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