linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH v7 0/5] Introduce provisioning primitives

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 30 May 2023 11:28:00 -0400
From:   Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...nel.org>
To:     Joe Thornber <thornber@...hat.com>
Cc:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
        Sarthak Kukreti <sarthakkukreti@...omium.org>,
        dm-devel@...hat.com, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
        Brian Foster <bfoster@...hat.com>,
        Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@...gle.com>,
        Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        Joe Thornber <ejt@...hat.com>,
        Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
        Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        Alasdair Kergon <agk@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/5] Introduce provisioning primitives

On Tue, May 30 2023 at 10:55P -0400,
Joe Thornber <thornber@...hat.com> wrote:

> On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 3:02 PM Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...nel.org> wrote:
> 
> >
> > Also Joe, for you proposed dm-thinp design where you distinquish
> > between "provision" and "reserve": Would it make sense for REQ_META
> > (e.g. all XFS metadata) with REQ_PROVISION to be treated as an
> > LBA-specific hard request?  Whereas REQ_PROVISION on its own provides
> > more freedom to just reserve the length of blocks? (e.g. for XFS
> > delalloc where LBA range is unknown, but dm-thinp can be asked to
> > reserve space to accomodate it).
> >
> 
> My proposal only involves 'reserve'.  Provisioning will be done as part of
> the usual io path.

OK, I think we'd do well to pin down the top-level block interfaces in
question. Because this patchset's block interface patch (2/5) header
says:

"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,"

So it wires up blkdev_fallocate() to call blkdev_issue_provision(). A
user of XFS could then use fallocate() for user data -- which would
cause thinp's reserve to _not_ be used for critical metadata.

The only way to distinquish the caller (between on-behalf of user data
vs XFS metadata) would be REQ_META?

So should dm-thinp have a REQ_META-based distinction? Or just treat
all REQ_OP_PROVISION the same?

Mike