| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAE=gft7Fyq+Jb3ZG3PSTR=C0Wjt3uu57+H2bshM6Gu=_0W0YQw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 14:19:46 -0800
From: Evan Green <evgreen@...omium.org>
To: ming.lei@...hat.com
Cc: axboe@...nel.dk, Gwendal Grignou <gwendal@...omium.org>,
asavery@...omium.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] loop: Better discard support for block devices
Hi Ming,
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 5:26 PM Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 04:06:24PM -0700, Evan Green wrote:
> > If the backing device for a loop device is a block device,
> > then mirror the discard properties of the underlying block
> > device into the loop device. While in there, differentiate
> > between REQ_OP_DISCARD and REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES, which are
> > different for block devices, but which the loop device had
> > just been lumping together.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Evan Green <evgreen@...omium.org>
> > ---
> >
> > drivers/block/loop.c | 61 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
> > 1 file changed, 41 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/block/loop.c b/drivers/block/loop.c
> > index 28990fc94841a..176e65101c4ef 100644
> > --- a/drivers/block/loop.c
> > +++ b/drivers/block/loop.c
> > @@ -417,19 +417,14 @@ static int lo_read_transfer(struct loop_device *lo, struct request *rq,
> > return ret;
> > }
> >
> > -static int lo_discard(struct loop_device *lo, struct request *rq, loff_t pos)
> > +static int lo_discard(struct loop_device *lo, struct request *rq,
> > + int mode, loff_t pos)
> > {
> > - /*
> > - * We use punch hole to reclaim the free space used by the
> > - * image a.k.a. discard. However we do not support discard if
> > - * encryption is enabled, because it may give an attacker
> > - * useful information.
> > - */
> > struct file *file = lo->lo_backing_file;
> > - int mode = FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE | FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE;
> > + struct request_queue *q = lo->lo_queue;
> > int ret;
> >
> > - if ((!file->f_op->fallocate) || lo->lo_encrypt_key_size) {
> > + if (!blk_queue_discard(q)) {
> > ret = -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > goto out;
> > }
> > @@ -603,8 +598,13 @@ static int do_req_filebacked(struct loop_device *lo, struct request *rq)
> > case REQ_OP_FLUSH:
> > return lo_req_flush(lo, rq);
> > case REQ_OP_DISCARD:
> > + return lo_discard(lo, rq,
> > + FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE | FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE, pos);
> > +
> > case REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES:
> > - return lo_discard(lo, rq, pos);
> > + return lo_discard(lo, rq,
> > + FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE | FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE, pos);
> > +
> > case REQ_OP_WRITE:
> > if (lo->transfer)
> > return lo_write_transfer(lo, rq, pos);
> > @@ -859,6 +859,25 @@ static void loop_config_discard(struct loop_device *lo)
> > struct file *file = lo->lo_backing_file;
> > struct inode *inode = file->f_mapping->host;
> > struct request_queue *q = lo->lo_queue;
> > + struct request_queue *backingq;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * If the backing device is a block device, mirror its discard
> > + * capabilities.
> > + */
> > + if (S_ISBLK(inode->i_mode)) {
> > + backingq = bdev_get_queue(inode->i_bdev);
> > + blk_queue_max_discard_sectors(q,
> > + backingq->limits.max_discard_sectors);
> > +
> > + blk_queue_max_write_zeroes_sectors(q,
> > + backingq->limits.max_write_zeroes_sectors);
> > +
> > + q->limits.discard_granularity =
> > + backingq->limits.discard_granularity;
> > +
> > + q->limits.discard_alignment =
> > + backingq->limits.discard_alignment;
>
> I think it isn't necessary to mirror backing queue's discard/write_zeros
> capabilities, given either fs of the underlying queue can deal with well.
>
> >
> > /*
> > * We use punch hole to reclaim the free space used by the
> > @@ -866,22 +885,24 @@ static void loop_config_discard(struct loop_device *lo)
> > * encryption is enabled, because it may give an attacker
> > * useful information.
> > */
> > - if ((!file->f_op->fallocate) ||
> > - lo->lo_encrypt_key_size) {
> > + } else if ((!file->f_op->fallocate) || lo->lo_encrypt_key_size) {
> > q->limits.discard_granularity = 0;
> > q->limits.discard_alignment = 0;
> > blk_queue_max_discard_sectors(q, 0);
> > blk_queue_max_write_zeroes_sectors(q, 0);
> > - blk_queue_flag_clear(QUEUE_FLAG_DISCARD, q);
> > - return;
> > - }
> >
> > - q->limits.discard_granularity = inode->i_sb->s_blocksize;
> > - q->limits.discard_alignment = 0;
> > + } else {
> > + q->limits.discard_granularity = inode->i_sb->s_blocksize;
> > + q->limits.discard_alignment = 0;
> > +
> > + blk_queue_max_discard_sectors(q, UINT_MAX >> 9);
> > + blk_queue_max_write_zeroes_sectors(q, UINT_MAX >> 9);
> > + }
> >
> > - blk_queue_max_discard_sectors(q, UINT_MAX >> 9);
> > - blk_queue_max_write_zeroes_sectors(q, UINT_MAX >> 9);
> > - blk_queue_flag_set(QUEUE_FLAG_DISCARD, q);
> > + if (q->limits.max_discard_sectors || q->limits.max_write_zeroes_sectors)
> > + blk_queue_flag_set(QUEUE_FLAG_DISCARD, q);
> > + else
> > + blk_queue_flag_clear(QUEUE_FLAG_DISCARD, q);
> > }
>
> Looks it should work just by mirroring backing queue's discard
> capability to loop queue in case that the loop is backed by
> block device, doesn't it? Meantime the unified discard limits &
> write_zeros limits can be kept.
I tested this out, and you're right that I could just flip the
QUEUE_FLAG_DISCARD based on whether its a block device, and leave
everything else alone, to completely disable discard support for loop
devices backed by block devices. This seems to work for programs like
mkfs.ext4, but still leaves problems for coreutils cp.
But is that really the right call? With this change, we're not only
able to use loop devices in this way, but we're able to use the
discard and zero functionality of the underlying block device by
simply passing it through. To me that seemed better than disabling all
discard support for block devices, which would severely slow us down
on some devices.
-Evan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists