linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/6] Support DAX for device-mapper dm-linear devices

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: <1466523280.3504.262.camel@hpe.com>
Date:	Tue, 21 Jun 2016 15:44:54 +0000
From:	"Kani, Toshimitsu" <toshi.kani@....com>
To:	"axboe@...com" <axboe@...com>,
	"snitzer@...hat.com" <snitzer@...hat.com>
CC:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"sandeen@...hat.com" <sandeen@...hat.com>,
	"linux-nvdimm@...1.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@...1.01.org>,
	"agk@...hat.com" <agk@...hat.com>,
	"linux-raid@...r.kernel.org" <linux-raid@...r.kernel.org>,
	"viro@...iv.linux.org.uk" <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	"dan.j.williams@...el.com" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
	"axboe@...nel.dk" <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	"ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com" <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>,
	"dm-devel@...hat.com" <dm-devel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] Support DAX for device-mapper dm-linear devices

On Tue, 2016-06-21 at 09:41 -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 20 2016 at  6:22pm -0400,
> Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com> wrote:
> > 
> > On Mon, Jun 20 2016 at  5:28pm -0400,
> > Kani, Toshimitsu <toshi.kani@....com> wrote:
> > 
 :
> > Looks good, I folded it in and tested it to work.  Pushed to my 'wip'
> > branch.
> > 
> > No longer seeing any corruption in my test that was using partitions to
> > span pmem devices with a dm-linear device.
> > 
> > Jens, any chance you'd be open to picking up the first 2 patches in this
> > series?  Or would you like to see them folded or something different?
>
> I'm now wondering if we'd be better off setting a new QUEUE_FLAG_DAX
> rather than establish GENHD_FL_DAX on the genhd?
> 
> It'd be quite a bit easier to allow upper layers (e.g. XFS and ext4) to
> check for a queue flag.

I think GENHD_FL_DAX is more appropriate since DAX does not use a request
queue, except for protecting the underlining device being disabled while
direct_access() is called (b2e0d1625e19).  

About protecting direct_access, this patch assumes that the underlining
device cannot be disabled until dtr() is called.  Is this correct?  If not,
I will need to call dax_map_atomic().

Thanks,
-Toshi