Message-ID: <8763fop31e.fsf@frosties.localdomain>
Date:	Tue, 26 May 2009 12:33:01 +0200
From:	Goswin von Brederlow <goswin-v-b@....de>
To:	Alberto Bertogli <albertito@...tiri.com.ar>
Cc:	Goswin von Brederlow <goswin-v-b@....de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dm-devel@...hat.com,
	linux-raid@...r.kernel.org, agk@...hat.com, neilb@...e.de
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] dm-csum: A new device mapper target that checks data integrity

Alberto Bertogli <albertito@...tiri.com.ar> writes:

> On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 02:22:23PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Alberto Bertogli <albertito@...tiri.com.ar> writes:
>> > I'm writing this device mapper target that stores checksums on writes and
>> > verifies them on reads.
>> 
>> How does that behave on crashes? Will checksums be out of sync with data?
>> Will pending blocks recalculate their checksum?
>
>    To guarantee consistency, two imd sectors (named M1 and M2) are kept for
>    every 62 data sectors, and the following procedure is used to update them
>    when a write to a given sector is required:
>
>     - Read both M1 and M2.
>     - Find out (using information stored in their headers) which one is newer.
>       Let's assume M1 is newer than M2.
>     - Update the M2 buffer to mark it's newer, and update the new data's CRC.
>     - Submit the write to M2, and then the write to the data, using a barrier
>       to make sure the metadata is updated _after_ the data.

Consider that the disk writes the data and then the system
crashes. Now you have the old checksum but the new data. The checksum
is out of sync.

Don't you mean that M2 is written _before_ the data? That way you have
the old checksum in M1 and the new in M2. One of them will match
depending on wether the data gets written before a crash or not. That
would be more consistent with your read operation below.

>    Accordingly, the read operations are handled as follows:
>
>     - Read both the data, M1 and M2.
>     - Find out which one is newer. Let's assume M1 is newer than M2.
>     - Calculate the data's CRC, and compare it to the one found in M1. If they
>       match, the reading is successful. If not, compare it to the one found in
>       M2. If they match, the reading is successful; otherwise, fail. If
>       the read involves multiple sectors, it is possible that some of the
>       correct CRCs are in M1 and some in M2.
>
>
> The barrier will be (it's not done yet) replaced with serialized writes for
> cases where the underlying block device does not support them, or when the
> integrity metadata resides on a different block device than the data.
>
>
> This scheme assumes writes to a single sector are atomic in the presence of
> normal crashes, which I'm not sure if it's something sane to assume in
> practise. If it's not, then the scheme can be modified to cope with that.

What happens if you have multiple writes to the same sector? (assuming
you ment "before" above)

- user writes to sector
- queue up write for M1 and data1
- M1 writes
- user writes to sector
- queue up writes for M2 and data2
- data1 is thrown away as data2 overwrites it
- M2 writes
- system crashes

Now both M1 and M2 have a different checksum than the old data left on
disk.

Can this happen?

MfG
        Goswin
--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists