linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] dax: Introduce normal and recovery dax operation modes

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: <63f89475-7a1f-e79e-7785-ba996211615b@oracle.com>
Date:   Mon, 8 Nov 2021 21:02:29 +0000
From:   Jane Chu <jane.chu@...cle.com>
To:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
CC:     david <david@...morbit.com>, "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Vishal L Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
        Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
        Alasdair Kergon <agk@...hat.com>,
        Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>,
        device-mapper development <dm-devel@...hat.com>,
        "Weiny, Ira" <ira.weiny@...el.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux NVDIMM <nvdimm@...ts.linux.dev>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-xfs <linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] dax: Introduce normal and recovery dax operation
 modes

On 11/6/2021 9:48 AM, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 6:17 PM Jane Chu <jane.chu@...cle.com> wrote:
>>
>> Introduce DAX_OP_NORMAL and DAX_OP_RECOVERY operation modes to
>> {dax_direct_access, dax_copy_from_iter, dax_copy_to_iter}.
>> DAX_OP_NORMAL is the default or the existing mode, and
>> DAX_OP_RECOVERY is a new mode for data recovery purpose.
>>
>> When dax-FS suspects dax media error might be encountered
>> on a read or write, it can enact the recovery mode read or write
>> by setting DAX_OP_RECOVERY in the aforementioned APIs. A read
>> in recovery mode attempts to fetch as much data as possible
>> until the first poisoned page is encountered. A write in recovery
>> mode attempts to clear poison(s) in a page-aligned range and
>> then write the user provided data over.
>>
>> DAX_OP_NORMAL should be used for all non-recovery code path.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jane Chu <jane.chu@...cle.com>
> [..]
>> diff --git a/include/linux/dax.h b/include/linux/dax.h
>> index 324363b798ec..931586df2905 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/dax.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/dax.h
>> @@ -9,6 +9,10 @@
>>   /* Flag for synchronous flush */
>>   #define DAXDEV_F_SYNC (1UL << 0)
>>
>> +/* dax operation mode dynamically set by caller */
>> +#define        DAX_OP_NORMAL           0
> 
> Perhaps this should be called DAX_OP_FAILFAST?

Sure.

> 
>> +#define        DAX_OP_RECOVERY         1
>> +
>>   typedef unsigned long dax_entry_t;
>>
>>   struct dax_device;
>> @@ -22,8 +26,8 @@ struct dax_operations {
>>           * logical-page-offset into an absolute physical pfn. Return the
>>           * number of pages available for DAX at that pfn.
>>           */
>> -       long (*direct_access)(struct dax_device *, pgoff_t, long,
>> -                       void **, pfn_t *);
>> +       long (*direct_access)(struct dax_device *, pgoff_t, long, int,
> 
> Would be nice if that 'int' was an enum, but I'm not sure a new
> parameter is needed at all, see below...

Let's do your suggestion below. :)

> 
>> +                               void **, pfn_t *);
>>          /*
>>           * Validate whether this device is usable as an fsdax backing
>>           * device.
>> @@ -32,10 +36,10 @@ struct dax_operations {
>>                          sector_t, sector_t);
>>          /* copy_from_iter: required operation for fs-dax direct-i/o */
>>          size_t (*copy_from_iter)(struct dax_device *, pgoff_t, void *, size_t,
>> -                       struct iov_iter *);
>> +                       struct iov_iter *, int);
> 
> I'm not sure the flag is needed here as the "void *" could carry a
> flag in the pointer to indicate that is a recovery kaddr.

Agreed.

> 
>>          /* copy_to_iter: required operation for fs-dax direct-i/o */
>>          size_t (*copy_to_iter)(struct dax_device *, pgoff_t, void *, size_t,
>> -                       struct iov_iter *);
>> +                       struct iov_iter *, int);
> 
> Same comment here.
> 
>>          /* zero_page_range: required operation. Zero page range   */
>>          int (*zero_page_range)(struct dax_device *, pgoff_t, size_t);
>>   };
>> @@ -186,11 +190,11 @@ static inline void dax_read_unlock(int id)
>>   bool dax_alive(struct dax_device *dax_dev);
>>   void *dax_get_private(struct dax_device *dax_dev);
>>   long dax_direct_access(struct dax_device *dax_dev, pgoff_t pgoff, long nr_pages,
>> -               void **kaddr, pfn_t *pfn);
>> +               int mode, void **kaddr, pfn_t *pfn);
> 
> How about dax_direct_access() calling convention stays the same, but
> the kaddr is optionally updated to carry a flag in the lower unused
> bits. So:
> 
> void **kaddr = NULL; /* caller only cares about the pfn */
> 
> void *failfast = NULL;
> void **kaddr = &failfast; /* caller wants -EIO not recovery */
> 
> void *recovery = (void *) DAX_OP_RECOVERY;
> void **kaddr = &recovery; /* caller wants to carefully access page(s)
> containing poison */
> 

Got it.

thanks!
-jane