linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 00/11] DAX fsynx/msync support

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: <x498u6crzum.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 05 Nov 2015 14:49:21 -0500
From:	Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
To:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc:	Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
	"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>,
	Jeff Layton <jlayton@...chiereds.net>,
	Matthew Wilcox <willy@...ux.intel.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-nvdimm@...1.01.org, x86@...nel.org,
	xfs@....sgi.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Matthew Wilcox <matthew.r.wilcox@...el.com>, axboe@...nel.dk
Subject: Re: [RFC 00/11] DAX fsynx/msync support

Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com> writes:

>> But this part is not.  It is up to the I/O scheduler to decide when to
>> dispatch requests.  It can hold on to them for a variety of reasons.
>> Flush requests, however, do not go through the I/O scheduler.  At the
>
> That's pure REQ_FLUSH bios, right? Aren't data IOs with
> REQ_FLUSH|REQ_FUA sorted like any other IO?

No, they also go through the flush machinery, and so short-circuit the
I/O scheduler.

>> Des xfs rely on this model for correctness?  If so, I'd say we've got a
>> problem
>
> No, it doesn't. The XFS integrity model doesn't trust the IO layers
> to tell the truth about IO ordering and completion or for it's
> developers to fully understand how IO layer ordering works. :P
>
> i.e. we wait for full completions of all dependent IO before issuing
> flushes or log writes that use REQ_FLUSH|REQ_FUA semantics to ensure
> the dependent IOs are fully caught by the cache flushes...

OK, phew!  ;-)

-Jeff
--
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/