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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2019 20:45:30 -0300 From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca> To: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com> Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>, Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 00/10] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 02:13:21PM -0700, Ira Weiny wrote: > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 08:27:55AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:25:55AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > e.g. Process A has an exclusive layout lease on file F. It does an > > > IO to file F. The filesystem IO path checks that Process A owns the > > > lease on the file and so skips straight through layout breaking > > > because it owns the lease and is allowed to modify the layout. It > > > then takes the inode metadata locks to allocate new space and write > > > new data. > > > > > > Process B now tries to write to file F. The FS checks whether > > > Process B owns a layout lease on file F. It doesn't, so then it > > > tries to break the layout lease so the IO can proceed. The layout > > > breaking code sees that process A has an exclusive layout lease > > > granted, and so returns -ETXTBSY to process B - it is not allowed to > > > break the lease and so the IO fails with -ETXTBSY. > > > > This description doesn't match the behaviour that RDMA wants either. > > Even if Process A has a lease on the file, an IO from Process A which > > results in blocks being freed from the file is going to result in the > > RDMA device being able to write to blocks which are now freed (and > > potentially reallocated to another file). > > I don't understand why this would not work for RDMA? As long as the layout > does not change the page pins can remain in place. Because process A had a layout lease (and presumably a MR) and the layout was still modified in way that invalidates the RDMA MR. Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists