| 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=gft4JNKVaxiF26LV_Eqoofoy8yOEnAjm-+iDJL994R7rqsg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2019 08:30:19 -0800
From: Evan Green <evgreen@...omium.org>
To: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Martin K Petersen <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
Gwendal Grignou <gwendal@...omium.org>,
Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>,
Alexis Savery <asavery@...omium.org>,
Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
Chaitanya Kulkarni <chaitanya.kulkarni@....com>,
linux-block <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] loop: Better discard support for block devices
On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 4:40 PM Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@...cle.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 09:22:51AM -0800, Evan Green wrote:
> > Thanks for replying and taking a look Darrick. I didn't see your patch
> > in Jens tree when I looked just before sending it, but maybe I missed
> > it.
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 5:37 PM Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@...cle.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 10:50:30AM -0800, Evan Green wrote:
> > > > If the backing device for a loop device is a block device,
> > > > then mirror the "write zeroes" capabilities of the underlying
> > > > block device into the loop device. Copy this capability into both
> > > > max_write_zeroes_sectors and max_discard_sectors of the loop device.
> > > >
> > > > The reason for this is that REQ_OP_DISCARD on a loop device translates
> > > > into blkdev_issue_zeroout(), rather than blkdev_issue_discard(). This
> > > > presents a consistent interface for loop devices (that discarded data
> > > > is zeroed), regardless of the backing device type of the loop device.
> > > > There should be no behavior change for loop devices backed by regular
> > > > files.
> > > >
> > > > 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, since
> > > > they're largely the same for files.
> > > >
> > > > This change fixes blktest block/003, and removes an extraneous
> > > > error print in block/013 when testing on a loop device backed
> > > > by a block device that does not support discard.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Evan Green <evgreen@...omium.org>
> > > > Reviewed-by: Gwendal Grignou <gwendal@...omium.org>
> > > > Reviewed-by: Chaitanya Kulkarni <chaitanya.kulkarni@....com>
> > > > ---
> > > >
> > > > Changes in v6: None
> > > > Changes in v5:
> > > > - Don't mirror discard if lo_encrypt_key_size is non-zero (Gwendal)
> > > >
> > > > Changes in v4:
> > > > - Mirror blkdev's write_zeroes into loopdev's discard_sectors.
> > > >
> > > > Changes in v3:
> > > > - Updated commit description
> > > >
> > > > Changes in v2: None
> > > >
> > > > drivers/block/loop.c | 57 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
> > > > 1 file changed, 37 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/block/loop.c b/drivers/block/loop.c
> > > > index d749156a3d88..236f6deb0772 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;
> > > > }
> > > > @@ -599,8 +594,13 @@ 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);
> > >
> > > Yes, this more or less reimplements what's already in -next...
> >
> > Agree, this part would disappear if I rebased on top of your patch.
> > This series has been around for awhile, you see :)
>
> Oh. Didn't quite realize that. :/
>
> > > > +
> > > > case REQ_OP_WRITE:
> > > > if (lo->transfer)
> > > > return lo_write_transfer(lo, rq, pos);
> > > > @@ -854,6 +854,21 @@ 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 zeroing
> > > > + * capability. REQ_OP_DISCARD translates to a zero-out even when backed
> > > > + * by block devices to keep consistent behavior with file-backed loop
> > > > + * devices.
> > > > + */
> > > > + if (S_ISBLK(inode->i_mode) && !lo->lo_encrypt_key_size) {
> > > > + backingq = bdev_get_queue(inode->i_bdev);
> > >
> > > What happens if the inode is from a filesystem that can have multiple
> > > backing devices (like btrfs)?
> >
> > Then I would expect S_ISBLK(inode->i_mode) would not be true. This is
> > only for when you've created a loop device directly on top of a block
> > device (ie you pointed the loop device at /dev/sda). We use this in
> > our Chrome OS installer because it makes the logic simple whether
> > you're installing to a real disk or a file image.
>
> Heh, doh, that's right. :)
>
> Sorry, for some reason I misread that as "If the backing device of the
> filesystem from which the inode came is a block device..."
>
> Might I suggest rewording the first sentence of the comment to read "If
> the loop device's backing device is itself a block device" for oafs like
> me? :)
Sure, I'll do that. Another spin coming shortly...
-Evan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists