linux-kernel - Re: [Drbd-dev] FLUSH/FUA documentation & code discrepancy

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: <20120910230654.GF7677@google.com>
Date:	Mon, 10 Sep 2012 16:06:54 -0700
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Lars Ellenberg <lars.ellenberg@...bit.com>
Cc:	Philipp Reisner <philipp.reisner@...bit.com>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, drbd-dev@...ts.linbit.com,
	Kent Overstreet <koverstreet@...gle.com>,
	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [Drbd-dev] FLUSH/FUA documentation & code discrepancy

Hello, again.

cc'ing Kent and Vivek.  The original thread is at

  http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network.drbd.devel/2130

On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 03:54:42PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > We can possibly work around that by introducing an additional submitter thread,
> > or at least our own list where we queue assembled bios until the lower
> > level device queue drains.
> > 
> > But we'd rather have the elevator see the FLUSH/FUA,
> > and treat them as at least a soft barrier/reorder boundary.
> > 
> > I may be wrong here, but all the necessary bits for this seem to be in
> > place already, if the information would even reach the elevator in one
> > way or other, and not be completely stripped away early.
> > 
> > What would you rather see, the elevator recognizing reorder boundaries?
> > Or additional higher level queueing and extra thread/work queue/whatever?
> > 
> > Both are fine with me, I'm just asking for an opinion.
> 
> First of all, using FLUSH/FUA for such purpose is an error-prone
> abuse.  You're trying to exploit an implementation detail which may
> change at any time.  I think what you want is to be able to specify
> REQ_SOFTBARRIER on bio submission, which shouldn't be too hard but I'm
> still lost why this is necessary.  Can you please explain it a bit
> more?

The problem with exposing REQ_SOFTBARRIER at bio submission is that it
would require block layer not to reorder bios while passing through
stacked adrivers until it reaches a rq-based driver.  I *suspect* this
has been true until now but Kent's pending patch to fix possible
deadlock issue breaks that.

  http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.bcache.devel/1017/focus=1356250

As for what the resolution should be, urgh... I don't know. :(

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/