linux-kernel - Re: limits on raid

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]

Message-ID: <20070621063936.GT85884050@sgi.com>
Date:	Thu, 21 Jun 2007 16:39:36 +1000
From:	David Chinner <dgc@....com>
To:	Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>
Cc:	David Chinner <dgc@....com>, Avi Kivity <avi@...o.co.il>,
	david@...g.hm, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-raid@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: limits on raid

On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 12:56:44PM +1000, Neil Brown wrote:
> On Monday June 18, dgc@....com wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 07:59:29AM +1000, Neil Brown wrote:
> > > Combining these thoughts, it would make a lot of sense for the
> > > filesystem to be able to say to the block device "That blocks looks
> > > wrong - can you find me another copy to try?".  That is an example of
> > > the sort of closer integration between filesystem and RAID that would
> > > make sense.
> > 
> > I think that this would only be useful on devices that store
> > discrete copies of the blocks on different devices i.e. mirrors. If
> > it's an XOR based RAID, you don't have another copy you can
> > retreive....
> 
> You could reconstruct the block in question from all the other blocks
> (including parity) and see if that differs from the data block read
> from disk...  For RAID6, there would be a number of different ways to
> calculate alternate blocks.   Not convinced that it is actually
> something we want to do, but it is a possibility.

Agreed - it's not as straight forward as a mirror, and it kind of assumes
that you have software RAID.

/me had his head stuck in hw raid land ;)

> I have that - apparently naive - idea that drives use strong checksum,
> and will never return bad data, only good data or an error.  If this
> isn't right, then it would really help to understand what the cause of
> other failures are before working out how to handle them....

The drive is not the only source of errors, though.  You could
have a path problem that is corrupting random bits between the drive
and the filesystem. So the data on the disk might be fine, and
reading it via a redundant path might be all that is needed.

Yeah, so I can see how having a different retry semantic would be a
good idea. i.e. if we do a READ_VERIFY I/O, the underlying device
attempts to verify the data is good in as many ways as possible
before returning the verified data or an error.

I guess a filesystem read would become something like this:

	verified = 0
	error = read(block)
	if (error) {
read_verify:
		error = read_verify(block)
		if (error) {
			OMG THE SKY IS FALLING
			return error
		}
		verified = 1
	}
	/* check contents */
	if (contents are bad) {
		if (!verified)
			goto read_verify
		OMG THE SKY HAS FALLEN
		return -EIO
	}

Is this the sort of erro handling and re-issuing of
I/O that you had in mind?

FWIW, I don't think this really removes the need for a filesystem to
be able to keep multiple copies of stuff about. If the copy(s) on a
device are gone, you've still got to have another copy somewhere
else to get it back...

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
Principal Engineer
SGI Australian Software Group
-
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/