linux-kernel - Re: Persistent Reservation API V3

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20150829135225.GB13103@lst.de>
Date:	Sat, 29 Aug 2015 15:52:25 +0200
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To:	Jeremy Linton <jlinton@...butary.com>
Cc:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>,
	linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org,
	dm-devel@...hat.com, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Persistent Reservation API V3

On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 08:33:24PM -0500, Jeremy Linton wrote:
> Hello,
> 	So, looking at this, I don't see how it supports the algorithm I've been using
> for years. For that algorithm to successfully migrate PRs across multiple paths
> on a single machine without affecting other possible users (who may legitimately
> have PR'ed the same device) I need PR_IN SA 1, READ RESERVATIONS to assure the
> current node owns the reservation before attempting to preempt it on another
> path. This can also assure that the device hasn't been reserved with a legacy
> reservation.

Do you have any code describing this in more detail?  We could add the
read side as well if there is strong interest.

> 	So, this leads me to two more general questions. The first is why isn't the PR
> API simply exported to filesystems as a general reserve/release so that the PR
> happens during mount/dismount. Then DM and friends can be setup to transparently
> migrate or share the reservation, rather than depending on userspace to handle
> these operations...

The API can be used by file systems, and my upcoming NFS SCSI layout
support was the main reason to write this.

> 	Also, it seems to me the use of CLEAR is extremely dangerous in any environment
> where actual arbitration or sharing of the resource is taking place.

Yes, but having it as a specific API isn't any less dangerous than
having it issued using SG_IO.  Reservations really only make sense if
you assume every user of a LU is actually cooperating in some way
and not actively hostile.
--
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/