linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] Storing cgroup id in page->private (Was: Re: [RFC] [PATCH 0/6] Provide cgroup isolation for buffered writes.)

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: <20110310213832.GK29464@redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 10 Mar 2011 16:38:32 -0500
From:	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
To:	Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>
Cc:	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
	Justin TerAvest <teravest@...gle.com>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	m-ikeda <m-ikeda@...jp.nec.com>, jaxboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	ryov <ryov@...inux.co.jp>, taka <taka@...inux.co.jp>,
	"righi.andrea" <righi.andrea@...il.com>,
	guijianfeng <guijianfeng@...fujitsu.com>,
	balbir <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	ctalbott <ctalbott@...gle.com>, nauman <nauman@...gle.com>,
	mrubin <mrubin@...gle.com>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Storing cgroup id in page->private (Was: Re: [RFC] [PATCH
 0/6] Provide cgroup isolation for buffered writes.)

On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 02:24:07PM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On 2011-03-10, at 2:15 PM, Chris Mason wrote:
> > Excerpts from Vivek Goyal's message of 2011-03-10 14:41:06 -0500:
> >> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 02:11:15PM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> >>>>> I think the person who dirtied the page can store the information in
> >>>>> page->private (assuming buffer heads were not generated) and if flusher
> >>>>> thread later ends up generating buffer heads and ends up modifying
> >>>>> page->private, this can be copied in buffer heads?
> >>>> 
> >>>> This scares me a bit.
> >>>> 
> >>>> As I understand it, fs/ code expects total ownership of page->private.
> >>>> This adds a responsibility for every user to copy the data through and
> >>>> store it in the buffer head (or anything else). btrfs seems to do
> >>>> something entirely different in some cases and store a different kind
> >>>> of value.
> >>> 
> >>> If filesystems are using page->private for some other purpose also, then
> >>> I guess we have issues. 
> >>> 
> >>> I am ccing linux-fsdevel to have some feedback on the idea of trying
> >>> to store cgroup id of page dirtying thread in page->private and/or buffer
> >>> head for tracking which group originally dirtied the page in IO controller
> >>> during writeback.
> >> 
> >> A quick "grep" showed that btrfs, ceph and logfs are using page->private
> >> for other purposes also.
> >> 
> >> I was under the impression that either page->private is null or it 
> >> points to buffer heads for the writeback case. So storing the info
> >> directly in either buffer head directly or first in page->private and
> >> then transferring it to buffer heads would have helped. 
> > 
> > Right, btrfs has its own uses for page->private, and we expect to own
> > it.  With a proper callback, the FS could store the extra information you
> > need in out own structs.
> 
> There is no requirement that page->private ever points to a buffer_head, and Lustre clients use it for its own tracking structure (never touching buffer_heads at all).  Any assumption about what a filesystem is storing in page->private in other parts of the code is just broken.

Andreas,

As Chris mentioned, will providing callbacks so that filesystem can
save/restore page->private be reasonable?

Thanks
Vivek
--
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/