linux-kernel - Re: [V2 PATCH] tmpfs: add fallocate 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: <4ECB3839.50908@redhat.com>
Date:	Tue, 22 Nov 2011 13:50:49 +0800
From:	Cong Wang <amwang@...hat.com>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
CC:	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
	Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
	Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Lennart Poettering <lennart@...ttering.net>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [V2 PATCH] tmpfs: add fallocate support

于 2011年11月21日 18:11, Christoph Hellwig 写道:
> On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 01:39:12PM -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
>>> To be able to safely use mmap(), regarding SIGBUS, on files on the
>>> /dev/shm filesystem. The glibc fallback loop for -ENOSYS on fallocate
>>> is just ugly.
>>
>> The fallback for -EOPNOTSUPP?
>
> Probably for both.  Note that the fallocate man page actually documents
> the errors incorrecly - it documents ENOSYS for filesystems not
> supporting fallocate, and EOPNOTSUPP for not recognizing the mode, but
> we actually return EOPNOTSUPP for either case.  ENOSYS is only returned
> by kernels not implementing fallocate at all.

We need to fix man page of fallocate(2)...

>
>> Being unfamiliar with glibc, I failed to find the internal_fallocate()
>> that it appears to use when the filesystem doesn't support the call;
>> so I don't know if I would agree with you that it's uglier than doing
>> the same(?) in the kernel.
>
> Last time I looked it basically did a pwrite loop writing zeroes.
> Unfortunately it did far too small I/O sizes and thus actually causes
> some major overhead e.g. on ext3.
>
>> But since the present situation is that tmpfs has one interface to
>> punching holes, madvise(MADV_REMOVE), that IBM were pushing 5 years ago;
>> but ext4 (and others) now a fallocate(FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE) interface
>> which IBM have been pushing this year: we do want to normalize that
>> situation and make them all behave the same way.
>
> FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE was added by Josef Bacik, who happens to work for
> Red Hat, but I doubt he was pushing any corporate agenda there, he was
> mostly making btrfs catch up with the 15 year old XFS hole punching
> ioctl.

I sent a patch to util-linux-ng too,

http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.utilities.util-linux-ng/5045

>
>
>> And if tmpfs is going to support fallocate(FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE),
>> looking at Amerigo's much more attractive V2 patch, it would seem
>> to me perverse to permit the deallocation but fail the allocation.
>
> Agreed.
>

Thanks.
--
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/