linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] ubifs: Allow O

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:	Tue, 25 Aug 2015 10:13:48 -0400
From:	Chris Mason <clm@...com>
To:	Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
CC:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
	Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com>,
	Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
	Dongsheng Yang <yangds.fnst@...fujitsu.com>,
	<linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>, <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ubifs: Allow O_DIRECT

On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 10:00:58AM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com> writes:
> 
> > On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 01:19:24PM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> >> Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com> writes:
> >> 
> >> > On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 10:13:25AM +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> >> >> Now, some user-space fails when direct I/O is not supported.
> >> >
> >> > I think the whole argument rested on what it means when "some user space
> >> > fails"; apparently that "user space" is just a test suite (which
> >> > can/should be fixed).
> >> 
> >> Even if it wasn't a test suite it should still fail.  Either the fs
> >> supports O_DIRECT or it doesn't.  Right now, the only way an application
> >> can figure this out is to try an open and see if it fails.  Don't break
> >> that.
> >
> > Who cares how a filesystem implements O_DIRECT as long as it does
> > not corrupt data? ext3 fell back to buffered IO in many situations,
> > yet the only complaints about that were performance. IOWs, it's long been
> > true that if the user cares about O_DIRECT *performance* then they
> > have to be careful about their choice of filesystem.
> 
> > But if it's only 5 lines of code per filesystem to support O_DIRECT
> > *correctly* via buffered IO, then exactly why should userspace have
> > to jump through hoops to explicitly handle open(O_DIRECT) failure?
> 
> > Especially when you consider that all they can do is fall back to
> > buffered IO themselves....
> 
> I had written counterpoints for all of this, but I thought better of
> it.  Old versions of the kernel simply ignore O_DIRECT, so clearly
> there's precedent.
> 
> I do think we should at least document what file systems appear to be
> doing.  Here's a man page patch for open (generated with extra context
> for easier reading).  Let me know what you think.

We shouldn't be ignoring it, but instead call it similar to O_DSYNC plus
removing the pages from cache.

-chris
--
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/