[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 10:09:24 -0800
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
shane.seymour@....com, Bruce Fields <bfields@...ldses.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...chiereds.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] block: create ioctl to discard-or-zeroout a range of
blocks
On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 01:01:11PM -0500, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> That's not entirely true. Writing the blocks may cause them to be
> allocated on the storage device (depending on which flags we feed it in
> WRITE SAME).
>
> The filesystems people were wanted the following semantics:
>
> - deallocate, don't care about contents for future reads (discard)
> - deallocate, guarantee zeroes on future reads (zeroout)
> - (re)allocate, guarantee zeroes on future reads (zeroout)
>
> Maybe we just need a better naming scheme...
In filesystem terms we have two and three:
- FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE assures zeroes are returned, but space is
deallocated as much as possible
- FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE assures zeroes are returned, AND blocks are
actually allocated
Returning stale blocks in a file system is a nasty security risk, so
we don't do that, and so shouldn't storage that offers any kind
of multi tenancy, and if it's just VMs using multiple partitions on it.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists