linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] nbd: support FLUSH requests

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]

Date:	Wed, 13 Feb 2013 17:02:10 +0100
From:	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:	Alex Bligh <alex@...x.org.uk>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, nbd-general@...ts.sf.net,
	Paul Clements <Paul.Clements@...eleye.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] nbd: support FLUSH requests

Il 13/02/2013 16:55, Alex Bligh ha scritto:
>> > But as far as I can test with free servers, the FUA bits have no
>> > advantage over flush.  Also, I wasn't sure if SEND_FUA without
>> > SEND_FLUSH is valid, and if so how to handle this combination (treat it
>> > as writethrough and add FUA to all requests? warn and do nothing?).
> On the main opensource nbd client, the following applies:
> 
> What REQ_FUA does is an fdatasync() after the write. Code extract and
> comments below from Christoph Hellwig.
> 
> What REQ_FLUSH does is to do an fsync().
> 
> The way I read Christoph's comment, provided the linux block layer always
> issues a REQ_FLUSH before a REQ_FUA, there is not performance problem.
> 
> However, a REQ_FUA is going to do a f(data)?sync AFTER the write, whereas
> the preceding REQ_FLUSH is going to an fsync() BEFORE the write. It seems
> to me that either the FUA and FLUSH semantics are therefore different
> (and we need FUA), or that Christoph's comment is wrong and that you
> are guaranteed a REQ_FLUSH *after* the write with REQ_FUA.

REQ_FLUSH is indeed a flush before the write.  fdatasync is fine there too.

If you do not have REQ_FUA, as is the case with this patch, the block
layer converts it to a REQ_FLUSH *after* the write.

See block/blk-flush.c:

 * REQ_{FLUSH|FUA} requests are decomposed to sequences consisted of three
 * optional steps - PREFLUSH, DATA and POSTFLUSH - according to the request
 * properties and hardware capability.
 *
 * If the device doesn't have writeback cache, FLUSH and FUA don't make any
 * difference.  The requests are either completed immediately if there's no
 * data or executed as normal requests otherwise.
 *
 * If the device has writeback cache and supports FUA, REQ_FLUSH is
 * translated to PREFLUSH but REQ_FUA is passed down directly with DATA.
 *
 * If the device has writeback cache and doesn't support FUA, REQ_FLUSH is
 * translated to PREFLUSH and REQ_FUA to POSTFLUSH.

Paolo
--
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/