linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v20 02/12] Add infrastructure for copy offload in block and request layer.

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: <d7ae00c8-c038-4bed-937e-222251bc627a@acm.org>
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2024 10:12:48 -0700
From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: Nitesh Shetty <nj.shetty@...sung.com>, Damien Le Moal
 <dlemoal@...nel.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
 Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Alasdair Kergon <agk@...hat.com>,
 Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...nel.org>, Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>,
 Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>, Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>,
 Chaitanya Kulkarni <kch@...dia.com>, Alexander Viro
 <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
 Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, martin.petersen@...cle.com, david@...morbit.com,
 hare@...e.de, damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com, anuj20.g@...sung.com,
 joshi.k@...sung.com, nitheshshetty@...il.com, gost.dev@...sung.com,
 linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, dm-devel@...ts.linux.dev,
 linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v20 02/12] Add infrastructure for copy offload in block
 and request layer.

On 5/31/24 22:59, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, May 30, 2024 at 10:11:15AM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>> This new approach has the following two disadvantages:
>> * Without plug, REQ_OP_COPY_SRC and REQ_OP_COPY_DST are not combined. These two
>>    operation types are the only operation types for which not using a plug causes
>>    an I/O failure.
> 
> So?  We can clearly document that and even fail submission with a helpful
> message trivially to enforce that.

Consider the following use case:
* Task A calls blk_start_plug()
* Task B calls blk_start_plug()
* Task A submits a REQ_OP_COPY_DST bio and a REQ_OP_COPY_SRC bio.
* Task B submits a REQ_OP_COPY_DST bio and a REQ_OP_COPY_SRC bio.
* The stacking driver to which all REQ_OP_COPY_* operations have been
   submitted processes bios asynchronusly.
* Task A calls blk_finish_plug()
* Task B calls blk_finish_plug()
* The REQ_OP_COPY_DST bio from task A and the REQ_OP_COPY_SRC bio from
   task B are combined into a single request.
* The REQ_OP_COPY_DST bio from task B and the REQ_OP_COPY_SRC bio from
   task A are combined into a single request.

This results in silent and hard-to-debug data corruption. Do you agree
that we should not restrict copy offloading to stacking drivers that
process bios synchronously and also that this kind of data corruption
should be prevented?

Thanks,

Bart.