| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <ZEAUHnWqt9cIiJRb@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2023 12:17:34 -0400
From: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...nel.org>
To: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
Sarthak Kukreti <sarthakkukreti@...omium.org>
Cc: dm-devel@...hat.com, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@...gle.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
Daniil Lunev <dlunev@...gle.com>,
Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>,
Brian Foster <bfoster@...hat.com>,
Alasdair Kergon <agk@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/4] block: Introduce provisioning primitives
On Wed, Apr 19 2023 at 11:36P -0400,
Darrick J. Wong <djwong@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 03:12:04PM -0700, Sarthak Kukreti wrote:
> > Introduce block request REQ_OP_PROVISION. The intent of this request
> > is to request underlying storage to preallocate disk space for the given
> > block range. Block devices that support this capability will export
> > a provision limit within their request queues.
> >
> > This patch also adds the capability to call fallocate() in mode 0
> > on block devices, which will send REQ_OP_PROVISION to the block
> > device for the specified range,
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Sarthak Kukreti <sarthakkukreti@...omium.org>
> > ---
> > block/blk-core.c | 5 ++++
> > block/blk-lib.c | 53 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > block/blk-merge.c | 18 +++++++++++++
> > block/blk-settings.c | 19 ++++++++++++++
> > block/blk-sysfs.c | 8 ++++++
> > block/bounce.c | 1 +
> > block/fops.c | 25 +++++++++++++-----
> > include/linux/bio.h | 6 +++--
> > include/linux/blk_types.h | 5 +++-
> > include/linux/blkdev.h | 16 ++++++++++++
> > 10 files changed, 147 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> >
>
> <cut to the fallocate part; the block/ changes look fine to /me/ at
> first glance, but what do I know... ;)>
>
> > diff --git a/block/fops.c b/block/fops.c
> > index d2e6be4e3d1c..e1775269654a 100644
> > --- a/block/fops.c
> > +++ b/block/fops.c
> > @@ -611,9 +611,13 @@ static ssize_t blkdev_read_iter(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *to)
> > return ret;
> > }
> >
> > +#define BLKDEV_FALLOC_FL_TRUNCATE \
>
> At first I thought from this name that you were defining a new truncate
> mode for fallocate, then I realized that this is mask for deciding if we
> /want/ to truncate the pagecache.
>
> #define BLKDEV_FALLOC_TRUNCATE_MASK ?
>
> > + (FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE | FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE | \
>
> Ok, so discarding and writing zeroes truncates the page cache, makes
> sense since we're "writing" directly to the block device.
>
> > + FALLOC_FL_NO_HIDE_STALE)
>
> Here things get tricky -- some of the FALLOC_FL mode bits are really an
> opcode and cannot be specified together, whereas others select optional
> behavior for certain opcodes.
>
> IIRC, the mutually exclusive opcodes are:
>
> PUNCH_HOLE
> ZERO_RANGE
> COLLAPSE_RANGE
> INSERT_RANGE
> (none of the above, for allocation)
>
> and the "variants on a theme are":
>
> KEEP_SIZE
> NO_HIDE_STALE
> UNSHARE_RANGE
>
> not all of which are supported by all the opcodes.
>
> Does it make sense to truncate the page cache if userspace passes in
> mode == NO_HIDE_STALE? There's currently no defined meaning for this
> combination, but I think this means we'll truncate the pagecache before
> deciding if we're actually going to issue any commands.
>
> I think that's just a bug in the existing code -- it should be
> validating that @mode is any of the supported combinations *before*
> truncating the pagecache.
>
> Otherwise you could have a mkfs program that starts writing new fs
> metadata, decides to provision the storage (say for a logging region),
> doesn't realize it's running on an old kernel, and then oops the
> provision attempt fails but have we now shredded the pagecache and lost
> all the writes?
While that just caused me to have an "oh shit, that's crazy" (in a
scary way) belly laugh...
(And obviously needs fixing independent of this patchset)
Shouldn't mkfs first check that the underlying storage supports
REQ_OP_PROVISION by verifying
/sys/block/<dev>/queue/provision_max_bytes exists and is not 0?
(Just saying, we need to add new features more defensively.. you just
made the case based on this scenario's implications alone)
Sarthak, please note I said "provision_max_bytes": all other ops
(e.g. DISCARD, WRITE_ZEROES, etc) have <op>_max_bytes exported through
sysfs, not <op>_max_sectors. Please export provision_max_bytes, e.g.:
diff --git a/block/blk-sysfs.c b/block/blk-sysfs.c
index 202aa78f933e..2e5ac7b1ffbd 100644
--- a/block/blk-sysfs.c
+++ b/block/blk-sysfs.c
@@ -605,12 +605,12 @@ QUEUE_RO_ENTRY(queue_io_min, "minimum_io_size");
QUEUE_RO_ENTRY(queue_io_opt, "optimal_io_size");
QUEUE_RO_ENTRY(queue_max_discard_segments, "max_discard_segments");
-QUEUE_RO_ENTRY(queue_max_provision_sectors, "max_provision_sectors");
QUEUE_RO_ENTRY(queue_discard_granularity, "discard_granularity");
QUEUE_RO_ENTRY(queue_discard_max_hw, "discard_max_hw_bytes");
QUEUE_RW_ENTRY(queue_discard_max, "discard_max_bytes");
QUEUE_RO_ENTRY(queue_discard_zeroes_data, "discard_zeroes_data");
+QUEUE_RO_ENTRY(queue_provision_max, "provision_max_bytes");
QUEUE_RO_ENTRY(queue_write_same_max, "write_same_max_bytes");
QUEUE_RO_ENTRY(queue_write_zeroes_max, "write_zeroes_max_bytes");
QUEUE_RO_ENTRY(queue_zone_append_max, "zone_append_max_bytes");
Powered by blists - more mailing lists