linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/11] fs: use freeze

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: <20171201215111.GQ5858@dastard>
Date:   Sat, 2 Dec 2017 08:51:11 +1100
From:   Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To:     Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
Cc:     Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>, Yu Chen <yu.chen.surf@...il.com>,
        "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
        bart.vanassche@....com, ming.lei@...hat.com, tytso@....edu,
        darrick.wong@...cle.com, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com,
        jgross@...e.com, todd.e.brandt@...ux.intel.com, nborisov@...e.com,
        jack@...e.cz, martin.petersen@...cle.com, ONeukum@...e.com,
        oleksandr@...alenko.name, oleg.b.antonyan@...il.com,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/11] fs: use freeze_fs on suspend/hibernate

On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 02:05:44PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-11-30 at 17:41 +0100, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> > On Fri, 1 Dec 2017, Yu Chen wrote:
> > 
> > > BTW, is nfs able to be included in this set? I also encountered a 
> > > freeze() failure due to nfs access during that stage recently.
> > 
> > The freezer usage in NFS is magnitudes more complicated, so it makes sense 
> > to first go after the lower hanging fruit to figure out the viability of 
> > the whole aproach in practice.
> > 
> 
> Agreed that we should do this in stages. It doesn't help that freezer
> handling in the client is a bit of a mess at this point...
> 
> At a high level for NFS, I think we need to have freeze_fs make the RPC
> engine "park" newly issued RPCs for that fs' client onto a
> rpc_wait_queue. Any RPC that has already been sent however, we need to
> wait for a reply.
> 
> Once everything is quiesced we can return and call it frozen.
> unfreeze_fs can then just have the engine stop parking RPCs and wake up
> the waitq.

That seems pretty reasonable. freezing is expected to take a bit of
time to run - local filesystems can do a fair bit of IO draining
queues, inflight operations and bringing the journal into a
consistent state on disk before declaring the filesystem is frozen.

> That should be enough to make suspend and resume work more reliably. If,
> however, you're interested in making the cgroup freezer also work, then
> we may need to do a bit more work to ensure that we don't end up with
> frozen tasks squatting on VFS locks.

None of the existing freezing code gives those guarantees. In fact,
freezing a filesystem pretty much guarantees the opposite - that
tasks *will freeze when holding VFS locks* - and so the cgroup
freezer is broken by design if it requires tasks to be frozen
without holding any VFS/filesystem lock context. So I wouldn't
really worry about the cgroup freezer....

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com