linux-kernel - Re: [dm-devel] Re: [RFD] BIO_RW_BARRIER - what it means for devices, filesystems, and dm/md.

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]

Date:	Wed, 30 May 2007 11:12:37 +0200
From:	"Stefan Bader" <Stefan.Bader@...ibm.com>
To:	"Stefan Bader" <sbader3@...glemail.com>,
	"device-mapper development" <dm-devel@...hat.com>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-raid@...r.kernel.org, "Jens Axboe" <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
	"David Chinner" <dgc@....com>, "Phillip Susi" <psusi@....rr.com>,
	"Stefan Bader" <Stefan.Bader@...ibm.com>,
	"Andreas Dilger" <adilger@...sterfs.com>,
	"Tejun Heo" <htejun@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [dm-devel] Re: [RFD] BIO_RW_BARRIER - what it means for devices, filesystems, and dm/md.

> > in-flight I/O to go to zero?
>
> Something like that is needed for some dm targets to support barriers.
> (We needn't always wait for *all* in-flight I/O.)
> When faced with -EOPNOTSUP, do all callers fall back to a sync in
> the places a barrier would have been used, or are there any more
> sophisticated strategies attempting to optimise code without barriers?
>
If I didn't misunderstand the idea is that no caller will face an
-EOPNOTSUPP in future. IOW every layer or driver somehow makes sure
the right thing happens.

>
> An efficient I/O barrier implementation would not normally involve
> flushing AFAIK: dm surely wouldn't "cause" a higher layer to assume
> stronger semantics than are provided.
>
Seems there are at least two assumptions about what the semantics
exactly _are_. Based on Documentation/block/barriers.txt I understand
a barrier implies ordering and flushing.
But regardless of that, assume the (admittedly constructed) following case:

You got a linear target that consists of two disks. One drive (a)
supports barriers and the other one (b) doesn't. Device-mapper just
maps the requests to the appropriate disk. Now the following sequence
happens:

1. block x gets mapped to drive b
2. block y (with barrier) gets mapped to drive a

Since drive a supports barrier request we don't get -EOPNOTSUPP but
the request with block y might get written before block x since the
disk are independent. I guess the chances of this are quite low since
at some point a barrier request will also hit drive b but for the time
being it might be better to indicate -EOPNOTSUPP right from
device-mapper.

Stefan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/