linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 02/10] dax: Introduce holder for dax

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: <CAPcyv4gUmpDnGkhd+WdhcJVMP07u+CT8NXRjzcOTp5KF-5Yo5g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 5 Jan 2022 16:12:04 -0800
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To:     "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>
Cc:     Shiyang Ruan <ruansy.fnst@...itsu.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-xfs <linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux NVDIMM <nvdimm@...ts.linux.dev>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        david <david@...morbit.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Jane Chu <jane.chu@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 02/10] dax: Introduce holder for dax_device

On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 3:54 PM Darrick J. Wong <djwong@...nel.org> wrote:
[..]
> > Yes, I think we should just fail the holder registration and
> > DAX+reflink unless the FS being mounted on a whole device. I know Ted
> > and others had reservations about moving filesystems to be mounted on
> > dax-devices directly, but hopefully the whole-block_device requirement
> > is a workable middle ground?
>
> I think you have to be /very/ careful about that kind of statement --
>
> Take ext4 for example.  It has a lot of statically allocated ondisk
> metadata.  Someone could decide that it's a good idea to wire up a media
> failure notification so that we shut down the fs if (say) a giant hole
> opens up in the middle of the inode table.  However, registering any
> kind of media failure handler brings along this requirement for not
> having partitions.
>
> This means that if ext4 finds a filesystem on a partition on a pmem
> device and someone else has already registered a media failure handler,
> it will have to choose between foregoing media failure notifications or
> failing the mount outright.

...good example.

> Or you could support notification call chains...

We ended up with explicit callbacks after hch balked at a notifier
call-chain, but I think we're back to that now. The partition mistake
might be unfixable, but at least bdev_dax_pgoff() is dead. Notifier
call chains have their own locking so, Ruan, this still does not need
to touch dax_read_lock().