linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 0/7] block: Introduce CBD (CXL Block Device)

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]

Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2024 13:47:29 +0800
From: Dongsheng Yang <dongsheng.yang@...ystack.cn>
To: Gregory Price <gregory.price@...verge.com>,
 Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, John Groves <John@...ves.net>
Cc: axboe@...nel.dk, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org,
 nvdimm@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/7] block: Introduce CBD (CXL Block Device)



在 2024/4/27 星期六 上午 12:14, Gregory Price 写道:
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 10:53:43PM +0800, Dongsheng Yang wrote:
>>
>>
>> 在 2024/4/26 星期五 下午 9:48, Gregory Price 写道:
>>>
>>
>> In (5) of the cover letter, I mentioned that cbd addresses cache coherence
>> at the software level:
>>
>> (5) How do blkdev and backend interact through the channel?
>> 	a) For reader side, before reading the data, if the data in this channel
>> may be modified by the other party, then I need to flush the cache before
>> reading to ensure that I get the latest data. For example, the blkdev needs
>> to flush the cache before obtaining compr_head because compr_head will be
>> updated by the backend handler.
>> 	b) For writter side, if the written information will be read by others,
>> then after writing, I need to flush the cache to let the other party see it
>> immediately. For example, after blkdev submits cbd_se, it needs to update
>> cmd_head to let the handler have a new cbd_se. Therefore, after updating
>> cmd_head, I need to flush the cache to let the backend see it.
>>
> 
> Flushing the cache is insufficient.  All that cache flushing guarantees
> is that the memory has left the writer's CPU cache.  There are potentially
> many write buffers between the CPU and the actual backing media that the
> CPU has no visibility of and cannot pierce through to force a full
> guaranteed flush back to the media.
> 
> for example:
> 
> memcpy(some_cacheline, data, 64);
> mfence();
> 
> Will not guarantee that after mfence() completes that the remote host
> will have visibility of the data.  mfence() does not guarantee a full
> flush back down to the device, it only guarantees it has been pushed out
> of the CPU's cache.
> 
> similarly:
> 
> memcpy(some_cacheline, data, 64);
> mfence();
> memcpy(some_other_cacheline, data, 64);
> mfence()
> 
> Will not guarantee that some_cacheline reaches the backing media prior
> to some_other_cacheline, as there is no guarantee of write-ordering in
> CXL controllers (with the exception of writes to the same cacheline).
> 
> So this statement:
> 
>> I need to flush the cache to let the other party see it immediately.
> 
> Is misleading.  They will not see is "immediately", they will see it
> "eventually at some completely unknowable time in the future".

This is indeed one of the issues I wanted to discuss at the RFC stage. 
Thank you for pointing it out.

In my opinion, using "nvdimm_flush" might be one way to address this 
issue, but it seems to flush the entire nd_region, which might be too 
heavy. Moreover, it only applies to non-volatile memory.

This should be a general problem for cxl shared memory. In theory, FAMFS 
should also encounter this issue.

Gregory, John, and Dan, Any suggestion about it?

Thanx a lot
> 
> ~Gregory
>