linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/19] dax: remove block device dependencies

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: <20200114203138.GA3145@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 14 Jan 2020 15:31:38 -0500
From:   Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
To:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc:     Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
        Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
        linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@...hat.com>,
        virtio-fs@...hat.com, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/19] dax: remove block device dependencies

On Thu, Jan 09, 2020 at 12:03:01PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 3:27 AM Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue 07-01-20 10:49:55, Dan Williams wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 10:33 AM Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com> wrote:
> > > > W.r.t partitioning, bdev_dax_pgoff() seems to be the pain point where
> > > > dax code refers back to block device to figure out partition offset in
> > > > dax device. If we create a dax object corresponding to "struct block_device"
> > > > and store sector offset in that, then we could pass that object to dax
> > > > code and not worry about referring back to bdev. I have written some
> > > > proof of concept code and called that object "dax_handle". I can post
> > > > that code if there is interest.
> > >
> > > I don't think it's worth it in the end especially considering
> > > filesystems are looking to operate on /dev/dax devices directly and
> > > remove block entanglements entirely.
> > >
> > > > IMHO, it feels useful to be able to partition and use a dax capable
> > > > block device in same way as non-dax block device. It will be really
> > > > odd to think that if filesystem is on /dev/pmem0p1, then dax can't
> > > > be enabled but if filesystem is on /dev/mapper/pmem0p1, then dax
> > > > will work.
> > >
> > > That can already happen today. If you do not properly align the
> > > partition then dax operations will be disabled. This proposal just
> > > extends that existing failure domain to make all partitions fail to
> > > support dax.
> >
> > Well, I have some sympathy with the sysadmin that has /dev/pmem0 device,
> > decides to create partitions on it for whatever (possibly misguided)
> > reason and then ponders why the hell DAX is not working? And PAGE_SIZE
> > partition alignment is so obvious and widespread that I don't count it as a
> > realistic error case sysadmins would be pondering about currently.
> >
> > So I'd find two options reasonably consistent:
> > 1) Keep status quo where partitions are created and support DAX.
> > 2) Stop partition creation altogether, if anyones wants to split pmem
> > device further, he can use dm-linear for that (i.e., kpartx).
> >
> > But I'm not sure if the ship hasn't already sailed for option 2) to be
> > feasible without angry users and Linus reverting the change.
> 
> Christoph? I feel myself leaning more and more to the "keep pmem
> partitions" camp.
> 
> I don't see "drop partition support" effort ending well given the long
> standing "ext4 fails to mount when dax is not available" precedent.
> 
> I think the next least bad option is to have a dax_get_by_host()
> variant that passes an offset and length pair rather than requiring a
> later bdev_dax_pgoff() to recall the offset. This also prevents
> needing to add another dax-device object representation.

I am wondering what's the conclusion on this. I want to this to make
progress in some direction so that I can make progress on virtiofs DAX
support.

Thanks
Vivek