linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 07/11] block: Add fops atomic write support

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: <87cysk1u14.fsf@doe.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2024 20:16:15 +0530
From: Ritesh Harjani (IBM) <ritesh.list@...il.com>
To: John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>, axboe@...nel.dk, kbusch@...nel.org, hch@....de, sagi@...mberg.me, jejb@...ux.ibm.com, martin.petersen@...cle.com, djwong@...nel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, brauner@...nel.org, dchinner@...hat.com, jack@...e.cz
Cc: linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, tytso@....edu, jbongio@...gle.com, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, ojaswin@...ux.ibm.com, linux-aio@...ck.org, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, io-uring@...r.kernel.org, nilay@...ux.ibm.com, John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 07/11] block: Add fops atomic write support

John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com> writes:

> Support atomic writes by submitting a single BIO with the REQ_ATOMIC set.
>
> It must be ensured that the atomic write adheres to its rules, like
> naturally aligned offset, so call blkdev_dio_invalid() ->
> blkdev_atomic_write_valid() [with renaming blkdev_dio_unaligned() to
> blkdev_dio_invalid()] for this purpose.
>
> In blkdev_direct_IO(), if the nr_pages exceeds BIO_MAX_VECS, then we cannot
> produce a single BIO, so error in this case.

BIO_MAX_VECS is 256. So around 1MB limit with 4k pagesize. 
Any mention of why this limit for now? Is it due to code complexity that
we only support a single bio? 
As I see it, you have still enabled req merging in block layer for
atomic requests. So it can essentially submit bio chains to the device
driver? So why not support this case for user to submit a req. larger
than 1 MB? 

>
> Finally set FMODE_CAN_ATOMIC_WRITE when the bdev can support atomic writes
> and the associated file flag is for O_DIRECT.
>
> Signed-off-by: John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>
> ---
>  block/fops.c | 31 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/block/fops.c b/block/fops.c
> index 28382b4d097a..563189c2fc5a 100644
> --- a/block/fops.c
> +++ b/block/fops.c
> @@ -34,13 +34,27 @@ static blk_opf_t dio_bio_write_op(struct kiocb *iocb)
>  	return opf;
>  }
>  
> -static bool blkdev_dio_unaligned(struct block_device *bdev, loff_t pos,
> -			      struct iov_iter *iter)
> +static bool blkdev_atomic_write_valid(struct block_device *bdev, loff_t pos,
> +				      struct iov_iter *iter)
>  {
> +	struct request_queue *q = bdev_get_queue(bdev);
> +	unsigned int min_bytes = queue_atomic_write_unit_min_bytes(q);
> +	unsigned int max_bytes = queue_atomic_write_unit_max_bytes(q);
> +
> +	return atomic_write_valid(pos, iter, min_bytes, max_bytes);

generic_atomic_write_valid() would be better for this function. However,
I have any commented about this in some previous

> +}
> +
> +static bool blkdev_dio_invalid(struct block_device *bdev, loff_t pos,
> +				struct iov_iter *iter, bool atomic_write)

bool "is_atomic" or "is_atomic_write" perhaps? 
we anyway know that we only support atomic writes and RWF_ATOMIC
operation is made -EOPNOTSUPP for reads in kiocb_set_rw_flags().
So we may as well make it "is_atomic" for bools.

> +{
> +	if (atomic_write && !blkdev_atomic_write_valid(bdev, pos, iter))
> +		return true;
> +
>  	return pos & (bdev_logical_block_size(bdev) - 1) ||
>  		!bdev_iter_is_aligned(bdev, iter);
>  }
>  
> +
>  #define DIO_INLINE_BIO_VECS 4
>  
>  static ssize_t __blkdev_direct_IO_simple(struct kiocb *iocb,
> @@ -71,6 +85,8 @@ static ssize_t __blkdev_direct_IO_simple(struct kiocb *iocb,
>  	}
>  	bio.bi_iter.bi_sector = pos >> SECTOR_SHIFT;
>  	bio.bi_ioprio = iocb->ki_ioprio;
> +	if (iocb->ki_flags & IOCB_ATOMIC)
> +		bio.bi_opf |= REQ_ATOMIC;
>  
>  	ret = bio_iov_iter_get_pages(&bio, iter);
>  	if (unlikely(ret))
> @@ -341,6 +357,9 @@ static ssize_t __blkdev_direct_IO_async(struct kiocb *iocb,
>  		task_io_account_write(bio->bi_iter.bi_size);
>  	}
>  
> +	if (iocb->ki_flags & IOCB_ATOMIC)
> +		bio->bi_opf |= REQ_ATOMIC;
> +
>  	if (iocb->ki_flags & IOCB_NOWAIT)
>  		bio->bi_opf |= REQ_NOWAIT;
>  
> @@ -357,13 +376,14 @@ static ssize_t __blkdev_direct_IO_async(struct kiocb *iocb,
>  static ssize_t blkdev_direct_IO(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *iter)
>  {
>  	struct block_device *bdev = I_BDEV(iocb->ki_filp->f_mapping->host);
> +	bool atomic_write = iocb->ki_flags & IOCB_ATOMIC;

ditto, bool is_atomic perhaps?

>  	loff_t pos = iocb->ki_pos;
>  	unsigned int nr_pages;
>  
>  	if (!iov_iter_count(iter))
>  		return 0;
>  
> -	if (blkdev_dio_unaligned(bdev, pos, iter))
> +	if (blkdev_dio_invalid(bdev, pos, iter, atomic_write))
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  
>  	nr_pages = bio_iov_vecs_to_alloc(iter, BIO_MAX_VECS + 1);
> @@ -371,6 +391,8 @@ static ssize_t blkdev_direct_IO(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *iter)
>  		if (is_sync_kiocb(iocb))
>  			return __blkdev_direct_IO_simple(iocb, iter, nr_pages);
>  		return __blkdev_direct_IO_async(iocb, iter, nr_pages);
> +	} else if (atomic_write) {
> +		return -EINVAL;
>  	}
>  	return __blkdev_direct_IO(iocb, iter, bio_max_segs(nr_pages));
>  }
> @@ -616,6 +638,9 @@ static int blkdev_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp)
>  	if (bdev_nowait(handle->bdev))
>  		filp->f_mode |= FMODE_NOWAIT;
>  
> +	if (bdev_can_atomic_write(handle->bdev) && filp->f_flags & O_DIRECT)
> +		filp->f_mode |= FMODE_CAN_ATOMIC_WRITE;
> +
>  	filp->f_mapping = handle->bdev->bd_inode->i_mapping;
>  	filp->f_wb_err = filemap_sample_wb_err(filp->f_mapping);
>  	filp->private_data = handle;
> -- 
> 2.31.1