linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] lightnvm: pblk: assume that chunks are closed on 1.2 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: <CANr-nt3Qzp-brMa16NAVa=E6eRCfpNyV44cmRoaxYUV0J7zStA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 26 Jun 2018 14:31:18 +0300
From:   Hans Holmberg <hans.ml.holmberg@...tronix.com>
To:     Matias Bjørling <mb@...htnvm.io>
Cc:     Javier Gonzalez <javier@...xlabs.com>, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Hans Holmberg <hans.holmberg@...xlabs.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lightnvm: pblk: assume that chunks are closed on 1.2 devices

On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 1:38 PM, Matias Bjørling <mb@...htnvm.io> wrote:
> On 06/26/2018 11:37 AM, Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 26 Jun 2018, at 10.41, Matias Bjørling <mb@...htnvm.io> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 06/19/2018 11:06 AM, Hans Holmberg wrote:
>>>>
>>>> From: Hans Holmberg <hans.holmberg@...xlabs.com>
>>>> We can't know if a block is closed or not on 1.2 devices, so assume
>>>> closed state to make sure that blocks are erased before writing.
>>>> Fixes: 32ef9412c114 ("lightnvm: pblk: implement get log report chunk")
>>>> Signed-off-by: Hans Holmberg <hans.holmberg@...xlabs.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> This patch applies on:
>>>> ssh://github.com/OpenChannelSSD/linux branch for-4.19/core
>>>>   drivers/lightnvm/pblk-init.c | 5 +++--
>>>>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/lightnvm/pblk-init.c b/drivers/lightnvm/pblk-init.c
>>>> index aa24264..3b8aa4a 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/lightnvm/pblk-init.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/lightnvm/pblk-init.c
>>>> @@ -717,10 +717,11 @@ static int pblk_setup_line_meta_12(struct pblk
>>>> *pblk, struct pblk_line *line,
>>>>                 /*
>>>>                  * In 1.2 spec. chunk state is not persisted by the
>>>> device. Thus
>>>> -                * some of the values are reset each time pblk is
>>>> instantiated.
>>>> +                * some of the values are reset each time pblk is
>>>> instantiated,
>>>> +                * so we have to assume that the block is closed.
>>>>                  */
>>>>                 if (lun_bb_meta[line->id] == NVM_BLK_T_FREE)
>>>> -                       chunk->state =  NVM_CHK_ST_FREE;
>>>> +                       chunk->state =  NVM_CHK_ST_CLOSED;
>>>>                 else
>>>>                         chunk->state = NVM_CHK_ST_OFFLINE;
>>>>
>>>
>>> pblk should scan (or the lightnvm subsystem) the blocks for their
>>> state, such that it doesn't have to reinitialize a full drive if it is
>>> already in a closed state. If marking closed, it does a full erase
>>> cycle on initialization, which should be avoided since it is a limited
>>> resource.
>>
>>
>> In 1.2 there is no such state unfortunately. However, pblk will never
>> attempt to reinitialize the whole drive - metadata for closed blocks
>> will be recovered and only those going to GC will be erased before
>> usage. In fact, a full close drive is the state pblk expects.
>>
>> This patch only affects "unknown blocks", thus the only case in which
>> pblk would attempt to double erase is when blocks have been pre-erased
>> (e.g., factory or through liblightnvm). After an erase round though,
>> pblk will only erase pre-usage. One thing we could do is attempting to
>> read the first page of these unknown blocks and mark them as free if
>> "empty page" is returned. Is this what you mean?
>
>
> Yes, that is what I mean.
>
> Note that this can be
>>
>> costly on large drives; this is the reason we returned to the pre-2.0
>> behaviour with this patch. We are implementing a log that, among other
>> things, keeps the state so that pblk can have an accurate state for the
>> cases this can be a problem.
>
>
> Yep, it will take some time. Good to hear with the log.

Until we have a log in place, this patch unbreaks 1.2 support and has
no negative impact on performance (as compared to pre 2.0 support), so
please consider it for the next window.
The current state is that if a pblk instance is created on a 1.2 disk
with written blocks, writes will fail.

 / Hans