linux-ext4 - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/7] dax, ext4: Synchronous page faults

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]

Message-ID: <20170801112603.GG4215@quack2.suse.cz>
Date:   Tue, 1 Aug 2017 13:26:03 +0200
From:   Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:     Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
        Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
        Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/7] dax, ext4: Synchronous page faults

On Tue 01-08-17 04:02:41, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 11:38:21AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > Well, you are right I can make the implementation work with struct file
> > flag as well - let's call it O_DAXDSYNC. However there are filesystem
> > operations where you may need to answer question: Is there any fd with
> > O_DAXDSYNC open against this inode (for operations that change file offset
> > -> block mapping)? And in that case inode flag is straightforward while
> > file flag is a bit awkward (you need to implement counter of fd's with that
> > flag in the inode).
> 
> We can still keep and inode flag as the internal implementation
> detail.  As mentioned earlier the right flag to control behavior
> of a mapping is an mmap flag.  And the initial naive implementation
> would simply mark the inode as sync once the first MAP_SYNC open happens
> on it.  We could then move to more precise tracking if/when needed.

OK, makes sense and I like the MAP_SYNC proposal. I'll change it in my
implementation.

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
SUSE Labs, CR