linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] dax: handle media errors in dax_do

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: <CAPcyv4hRQj2ZsFj7Xa_=OwcHrzP9_5yUpt3LQ+bPH4PcLe7UCQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 15 Apr 2016 11:17:39 -0700
From:	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To:	Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
Cc:	"Verma, Vishal L" <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
	"hch@...radead.org" <hch@...radead.org>,
	"jack@...e.cz" <jack@...e.cz>, "axboe@...com" <axboe@...com>,
	"linux-nvdimm@...1.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@...1.01.org>,
	"david@...morbit.com" <david@...morbit.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"xfs@....sgi.com" <xfs@....sgi.com>,
	"linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	"viro@...iv.linux.org.uk" <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Wilcox, Matthew R" <matthew.r.wilcox@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] dax: handle media errors in dax_do_io

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:06 AM, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com> wrote:
> Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com> writes:
>
>>>> There's a lot of special casing here, so you might consider adding
>>>> comments.
>>>
>>> Correct - maybe we should reconsider wrapper-izing this? :)
>>
>> Another option is just to skip dax_do_io() and this special casing
>> fallback entirely if errors are present.  I.e. only attempt dax_do_io
>> when: IS_DAX() && gendisk->bb && bb->count == 0.
>
> So, if there's an error anywhere on the device, penalize all I/O (not
> just writes, and not just on sectors that are bad)?  I'm not sure that's
> a great plan, either.
>

If errors are rare how much are we actually losing in practice?
Moreover, we're going to do the full badblocks lookup anyway when we
call ->direct_access().  If we had that information earlier we can
avoid this fallback dance.