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  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:   Mon, 12 Aug 2019 10:36:26 -0700
From:   Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>
To:     Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org,
        linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 01/19] fs/locks: Export F_LAYOUT lease to user
 space

On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 09:52:31AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 03:58:15PM -0700, ira.weiny@...el.com wrote:
> > From: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>
> > 
> > In order to support an opt-in policy for users to allow long term pins
> > of FS DAX pages we need to export the LAYOUT lease to user space.
> > 
> > This is the first of 2 new lease flags which must be used to allow a
> > long term pin to be made on a file.
> > 
> > After the complete series:
> > 
> > 0) Registrations to Device DAX char devs are not affected
> > 
> > 1) The user has to opt in to allowing page pins on a file with an exclusive
> >    layout lease.  Both exclusive and layout lease flags are user visible now.
> > 
> > 2) page pins will fail if the lease is not active when the file back page is
> >    encountered.
> > 
> > 3) Any truncate or hole punch operation on a pinned DAX page will fail.
> > 
> > 4) The user has the option of holding the lease or releasing it.  If they
> >    release it no other pin calls will work on the file.
> > 
> > 5) Closing the file is ok.
> > 
> > 6) Unmapping the file is ok
> > 
> > 7) Pins against the files are tracked back to an owning file or an owning mm
> >    depending on the internal subsystem needs.  With RDMA there is an owning
> >    file which is related to the pined file.
> > 
> > 8) Only RDMA is currently supported
> > 
> > 9) Truncation of pages which are not actively pinned nor covered by a lease
> >    will succeed.
> 
> This has nothing to do with layout leases or what they provide
> access arbitration over. Layout leases have _nothing_ to do with
> page pinning or RDMA - they arbitrate behaviour the file offset ->
> physical block device mapping within the filesystem and the
> behaviour that will occur when a specific lease is held.
> 
> The commit descripting needs to describe what F_LAYOUT actually
> protects, when they'll get broken, etc, not how RDMA is going to use
> it.

Ok yes I've been lax in mixing the cover letter for the series and this first
commit message.  My apologies.

> 
> > @@ -2022,8 +2030,26 @@ static int do_fcntl_add_lease(unsigned int fd, struct file *filp, long arg)
> >  	struct file_lock *fl;
> >  	struct fasync_struct *new;
> >  	int error;
> > +	unsigned int flags = 0;
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * NOTE on F_LAYOUT lease
> > +	 *
> > +	 * LAYOUT lease types are taken on files which the user knows that
> > +	 * they will be pinning in memory for some indeterminate amount of
> > +	 * time.
> 
> Indeed, layout leases have nothing to do with pinning of memory.

Yep, Fair enough.  I'll rework the comment.

> That's something an application taht uses layout leases might do,
> but it largely irrelevant to the functionality layout leases
> provide. What needs to be done here is explain what the layout lease
> API actually guarantees w.r.t. the physical file layout, not what
> some application is going to do with a lease. e.g.
> 
> 	The layout lease F_RDLCK guarantees that the holder will be
> 	notified that the physical file layout is about to be
> 	changed, and that it needs to release any resources it has
> 	over the range of this lease, drop the lease and then
> 	request it again to wait for the kernel to finish whatever
> 	it is doing on that range.
> 
> 	The layout lease F_RDLCK also allows the holder to modify
> 	the physical layout of the file. If an operation from the
> 	lease holder occurs that would modify the layout, that lease
> 	holder does not get notification that a change will occur,
> 	but it will block until all other F_RDLCK leases have been
> 	released by their holders before going ahead.
> 
> 	If there is a F_WRLCK lease held on the file, then a F_RDLCK
> 	holder will fail any operation that may modify the physical
> 	layout of the file. F_WRLCK provides exclusive physical
> 	modification access to the holder, guaranteeing nothing else
> 	will change the layout of the file while it holds the lease.
> 
> 	The F_WRLCK holder can change the physical layout of the
> 	file if it so desires, this will block while F_RDLCK holders
> 	are notified and release their leases before the
> 	modification will take place.
> 
> We need to define the semantics we expose to userspace first.....

Agreed.  I believe I have implemented the semantics you describe above.  Do I
have your permission to use your verbiage as part of reworking the comment and
commit message?

Thanks,
Ira

> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Dave.
> -- 
> Dave Chinner
> david@...morbit.com
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists