linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 06/10] Block 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: <4C61763B.5050500@fusionio.com>
Date:	Tue, 10 Aug 2010 11:54:35 -0400
From:	Jens Axboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com>
To:	"ngupta@...are.org" <ngupta@...are.org>
CC:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
	Linux Driver Project <devel@...uxdriverproject.org>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/10] Block discard support

On 08/10/2010 12:54 AM, Nitin Gupta wrote:
> On 08/10/2010 07:53 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 08/09/2010 03:03 PM, Pekka Enberg wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 8:26 PM, Nitin Gupta <ngupta@...are.org> wrote:
>>>> The 'discard' bio discard request provides information to
>>>> zram disks regarding blocks which are no longer in use by
>>>> filesystem. This allows freeing memory allocated for such
>>>> blocks.
>>>>
>>>> When zram devices are used as swap disks, we already have
>>>> a callback (block_device_operations->swap_slot_free_notify).
>>>> So, the discard support is useful only when used as generic
>>>> (non-swap) disk.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Nitin Gupta <ngupta@...are.org>
>>>
>>> Lets CC fsdevel and Jens for this.
>>
>> Looks OK from a quick look. One comment, though:
>>
>>>> +static void zram_discard(struct zram *zram, struct bio *bio)
>>>> +{
>>>> +       size_t bytes = bio->bi_size;
>>>> +       sector_t sector = bio->bi_sector;
>>>> +
>>>> +       while (bytes >= PAGE_SIZE) {
>>>> +               zram_free_page(zram, sector >> SECTORS_PER_PAGE_SHIFT);
>>>> +               sector += PAGE_SIZE >> SECTOR_SHIFT;
>>>> +               bytes -= PAGE_SIZE;
>>>> +       }
>>>> +
>>>> +       bio_endio(bio, 0);
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>
>> So freeing the page here will guarantee zeroed return on read?
> 
> For reads on freed/unwritten sectors, it simply returns success and
> does not touch the bio page. Is it better to zero the page in such
> cases?

Well, you told the kernel that you return zeroes on discarded ranges:

        zram->disk->queue->limits.discard_zeroes_data = 1;

So yes, if you intend to keep that, then you need to zero the
incoming pages that have been explicitly trimmed by a discard.

-- 
Jens Axboe


Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, its contents and any attachments to it are confidential to the intended recipient, and may contain information that is privileged and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify the sender and destroy the original e-mail message and any attachments (and any copies that may have been made) from your system or otherwise. Any unauthorized use, copying, disclosure or distribution of this information is strictly prohibited.
--
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/