linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 01/16] NOVA: Documentation

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: <1501859388.2757.1.camel@wdc.com>
Date:   Fri, 4 Aug 2017 15:09:49 +0000
From:   Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@....com>
To:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
        "swanson@....ucsd.edu" <swanson@....ucsd.edu>,
        "linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
CC:     "dan.j.williams@...el.com" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        "steven.swanson@...il.com" <steven.swanson@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 01/16] NOVA: Documentation

On Thu, 2017-08-03 at 00:48 -0700, Steven Swanson wrote:
> +### DAX Support
> +
> +Supporting DAX efficiently is a core feature of NOVA and one of the challenges
> +in designing NOVA is reconciling DAX support which aims to avoid file system
> +intervention when file data changes, and other features that require such
> +intervention.
> +
> +NOVA's philosophy with respect to DAX is that when a program uses DAX mmap to
> +to modify a file, the program must take full responsibility for that data and
> +NOVA must ensure that the memory will behave as expected.  At other times, the
> +file system provides protection.  This approach has several implications:
> +
> +1. Implementing `msync()` in user space works fine.
> +
> +2. While a file is mmap'd, it is not protected by NOVA's RAID-style parity
> +mechanism, because protecting it would be too expensive.  When the file is
> +unmapped and/or during file system recovery, protection is restored.
> +
> +3. The snapshot mechanism must be careful about the order in which in adds
> +pages to the file's snapshot image.

Hello Steven,

Thank you for having shared this very interesting work. After having read the
NOVA paper and patch 01/16 I have a question for you. Does the above mean that
COW is disabled for writable mmap-ed files? If so, what is the reason behind
this? Is there a fundamental issue that does not allow to implement COW for
writable mmap-ed files? Or have you perhaps tried to implement this and was the
performance not sufficient? Please note that I'm neither a filesystem nor a
persistent memory expert.

Thanks,

Bart.