linux-kernel - Re: Barriers still not passing on simple dm devices...

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:	Mon, 23 Mar 2009 14:10:28 -0500
From:	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
To:	device-mapper development <dm-devel@...hat.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	"MASON,CHRISTOPHER" <CHRIS.MASON@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: Barriers still not passing on simple dm devices...

Eric Sandeen wrote:

(oops, get Andi's email right!)

> I've noticed that on 2.6.29-rcX, with Andi's patch
> (ab4c1424882be9cd70b89abf2b484add355712fa, dm: support barriers on
> simple devices) barriers are still getting rejected on these simple devices.
> 
> The problem is in __generic_make_request():
> 
>                 if (bio_barrier(bio) && bio_has_data(bio) &&
>                     (q->next_ordered == QUEUE_ORDERED_NONE)) {
>                         err = -EOPNOTSUPP;
>                         goto end_io;
>                 }
> 
> and dm isn't flagging its queue as supporting ordered writes, so it's
> rejected here.
> 
> Doing something like this:
> 
> + if (t->barriers_supported)
> +         blk_queue_ordered(q, QUEUE_ORDERED_DRAIN, NULL);
> 
> somewhere in dm (I stuck it in dm_table_set_restrictions() - almost
> certainly the wrong thing to do) did get my dm-linear device to mount
> with xfs, w/o xfs complaining that its mount-time barrier tests failed.
> 
> So what's the right way around this?  What should dm (or md for that
> matter) advertise on their queues about ordered-ness?  Should there be
> some sort of "QUEUE_ORDERED_PASSTHROUGH" or something to say "this level
> doesn't care, ask the next level" or somesuch?  Or should it inherit the
> flag from the next level down?  Ideas?
> 
> Thanks,
> -Eric
> 

--
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/