linux-kernel - Re: dm: enable opt-out of device-mapper dax 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: <1501621491.2475.20.camel@wdc.com>
Date:   Tue, 1 Aug 2017 21:04:52 +0000
From:   Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@....com>
To:     "dan.j.williams@...el.com" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        "snitzer@...hat.com" <snitzer@...hat.com>
CC:     "dm-devel@...hat.com" <dm-devel@...hat.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
        "agk@...hat.com" <agk@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: dm: enable opt-out of device-mapper dax support

On Tue, 2017-08-01 at 13:59 -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 12:02 PM, Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 01 2017 at  2:12pm -0400,
> > > Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com> wrote:
> > > > [ ... ]
> > > 
> > > I'm questioning the need to have yet another Kbuild CONFIG option.  If
> > > the user has enabled CONFIG_BLK_DEV_PMEM and CONFIG_FS_DAX (DAX already
> > > gets selected by CONFIG_FS_DAX) then shouldn't the DM capabilities just
> > > be enabled?
> > > 
> > > Guess I'm just skeptical of: why do we want to move to a model where
> > > users need to opt-in to DM support for DAX?
> > > 
> > > I also _really_ don't like each target's DAX support being colocated in
> > > drivers/md/dm-dax.c
> > > 
> > > This all looks and feels like a serious step backwards.
> > 
> > Ok, you want ifdef'd sections of DAX code in each target and make
> > DM_DAX a silent option that gets enabled with BLK_DEV_PMEM, anything
> > else?
> 
> Actually, no, I was thrown off by Bart's suggestion to move code
> around. I can handle this all by deleting "select DAX" and adding more
> stubbed out dax helpers.

Hello Mike and Dan,

How about one *-dax.c file per *.c dm file that has to be modified to add DAX support?
I think that approach would avoid collocation of code for different targets in a
single dm-dax.c file and would also avoid that #ifdef CONFIG_DAX statements have to
be added. This approach is orthogonal to removal of CONFIG_DM_DAX.

Thanks,

Bart.