linux-ext4 - Re: Problems with VM_MIXEDMAP removal from /proc/<pid>/smaps

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: <x49h8hkfhk9.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 17 Oct 2018 16:23:50 -0400
From:   Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
To:     Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc:     Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@...e.de>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>, linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Problems with VM_MIXEDMAP removal from /proc/<pid>/smaps

Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> writes:

> [Added ext4, xfs, and linux-api folks to CC for the interface discussion]
>
> On Tue 02-10-18 14:10:39, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 12:05:31PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
>> > Hello,
>> > 
>> > commit e1fb4a086495 "dax: remove VM_MIXEDMAP for fsdax and device dax" has
>> > removed VM_MIXEDMAP flag from DAX VMAs. Now our testing shows that in the
>> > mean time certain customer of ours started poking into /proc/<pid>/smaps
>> > and looks at VMA flags there and if VM_MIXEDMAP is missing among the VMA
>> > flags, the application just fails to start complaining that DAX support is
>> > missing in the kernel. The question now is how do we go about this?
>> 
>> OK naive question from me, how do we want an application to be able to
>> check if it is running on a DAX mapping?
>
> The question from me is: Should application really care? After all DAX is
> just a caching decision. Sure it affects performance characteristics and
> memory usage of the kernel but it is not a correctness issue (in particular
> we took care for MAP_SYNC to return EOPNOTSUPP if the feature cannot be
> supported for current mapping). And in the future the details of what we do
> with DAX mapping can change - e.g. I could imagine we might decide to cache
> writes in DRAM but do direct PMEM access on reads. And all this could be
> auto-tuned based on media properties. And we don't want to tie our hands by
> specifying too narrowly how the kernel is going to behave.

For read and write, I would expect the O_DIRECT open flag to still work,
even for dax-capable persistent memory.  Is that a contentious opinion?

So, what we're really discussing is the behavior for mmap.  MAP_SYNC
will certainly ensure that the page cache is not used for writes.  It
would also be odd for us to decide to cache reads.  The only issue I can
see is that perhaps the application doesn't want to take a performance
hit on write faults.  I haven't heard that concern expressed in this
thread, though.

Just to be clear, this is my understanding of the world:

MAP_SYNC
- file system guarantees that metadata required to reach faulted-in file
  data is consistent on media before a write fault is completed.  A
  side-effect is that the page cache will not be used for
  writably-mapped pages.

and what I think Dan had proposed:

mmap flag, MAP_DIRECT
- file system guarantees that page cache will not be used to front storage.
  storage MUST be directly addressable.  This *almost* implies MAP_SYNC.
  The subtle difference is that a write fault /may/ not result in metadata
  being written back to media.

and this is what I think you were proposing, Jan:

madvise flag, MADV_DIRECT_ACCESS
- same semantics as MAP_DIRECT, but specified via the madvise system call

Cheers,
Jeff