linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 14/15] libnvdimm: support read-only btt backing devices

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: <20150622063028.GA30434@lst.de>
Date:	Mon, 22 Jun 2015 08:30:28 +0200
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To:	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc:	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	"linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
	Boaz Harrosh <boaz@...xistor.com>,
	"Kani, Toshimitsu" <toshi.kani@...com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/15] libnvdimm: support read-only btt backing devices

On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 08:11:25AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> The labels only allow allocation of persistent media between pmem and
> blk.  For a given dimm you may access in either mode and the label
> records the decision.  We can have a btt on either the pmem or
> blk-mode disk type, or partition thereof.

Sounds like the spec should allow a btt type as well insteaad of
requiring the OS to work around it, as that seems to be one of the few
useful things to do with a run-time label.

Either way, partitions are trivial things and we could add them to the
nvdimm layer.

> Yes, it's this hybrid thing that mostly fits into the existing block
> device model save for two new block_device_operations
> ->direct_access() and ->rw_bytes().  We then use property of a
> block_device that allows it to be claimed for exclusive ownership by a
> filesystem or another block_device to layer storage semantics on top
> be it files+directories, raid, caching, or atomic sectors.  NVDIMM
> devices don't present the same complexity as MTD devices.  The only
> complexity they present is byte-address-ability, not erase-block-size,
> wear-leveling, etc...

I didn't say they show the same complexities, but the same layering.

> Good to hear that we don't need BTT for XFS v5, can we make the
> guarantee for all filesystems that may want to support DAX?  I still
> think stacking is a natural fit for this problem.

I can't make any guarantees, especially not without verification.  But
if correctly implemented any filesystems that does out of place metadata
writes (and that includes a traditional log) and uses checksum to ensure
the integrity of these updates it should be fine.  You'd still have
the issue of sector atomicy of file I/O though.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/