linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH, RFC] xfs: batched discard support

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: <87f94c370908201019i406e74a0s59c67f56ec2c9c16@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 20 Aug 2009 13:19:20 -0400
From:	Greg Freemyer <greg.freemyer@...il.com>
To:	Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@...hat.com>
Cc:	Mark Lord <liml@....ca>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	xfs@....sgi.com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	jens.axboe@...cle.com,
	"IDE/ATA development list" <linux-ide@...r.kernel.org>,
	Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] xfs: batched discard support

On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Ric Wheeler<rwheeler@...hat.com> wrote:
> On 08/20/2009 10:38 AM, Mark Lord wrote:
>>
>> Ric Wheeler wrote:
>>>
>>> Note that returning consistent data is critical for devices that are
>>> used in a RAID group since you will need each RAID block that is used
>>> to compute the parity to continue to return the same data until you
>>> overwrite it with new data :-)
>>>
>>> If we have a device that does not support this (or is misconfigured
>>> not to do this), we should not use those devices in an MD group & do
>>> discard against it...
>>
>> ..
>>
>> Well, that's a bit drastic. But the RAID software should at least
>> not issue TRIM commands in ignorance of such.
>
> If the storage can return different data in a sequence of READ requests of
> the same sector (with no writes), there is nothing RAID could do. It would
> see total garbage...
>
>> Would it still be okay to do the TRIMs when the entire parity stripe
>> (across all members) is being discarded? (As opposed to just partial
>> data there being dropped)
>
> This should be safe if the MD bitmaps would prevent us from trying to
> READ/regenerate parity for that stripe...
>
> ric

The harder thing for mdraid is putting a stripe back in service.  If
even a single sector is written to a "discarded" stripe, the entire
stripe has to be written with determinate data that has the right
parity.

ie. Only full stripes can be discarded and only full-stripes can be
put back in service.

Greg
-- 
Greg Freemyer
Head of EDD Tape Extraction and Processing team
Litigation Triage Solutions Specialist
http://www.linkedin.com/in/gregfreemyer
Preservation and Forensic processing of Exchange Repositories White Paper -
<http://www.norcrossgroup.com/forms/whitepapers/tng_whitepaper_fpe.html>

The Norcross Group
The Intersection of Evidence & Technology
http://www.norcrossgroup.com
--
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/