netdev - Re: [0/3] POHMELFS high performance network filesystem. IPv6 support, documentation update.

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20080725194033.GA16133@shareable.org>
Date:	Fri, 25 Jul 2008 20:40:34 +0100
From:	Jamie Lokier <jamie@...reable.org>
To:	Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [0/3] POHMELFS high performance network filesystem. IPv6 support, documentation update.


>From the design notes,
> POHMELFS got full data and metadata cache coherency support.
>
> It was rather simple task due to async event processing support.
>
> Each time client creates, reads or writes object to server,
> information about its interest is stored on server. When any other
> client updates the same object (like changing attributes or writes
> data), all interested clients get notifications with new data (new
> attributes, or in case of writing possibly new size and flag, which
> page has to be fetched from the server, since it is not valid
> anymore). Writing happens during writeback as before, so commands like
> "echo Some_message > /mnt/file" immediately syncs size of the file to
> zero and after some time writes there actual data, when system will
> decide to start writeback.

I'm just going by what the notes say, which don't seem very clear.

Consider this:

   1. Client A reads FILE, and registers its interest in FILE.
         (Contents are not interesting, e.g. 'Hello_sister')
   2. Client B does "echo Some_message > /mnt/file".
       - Truncates the file, sending truncate message to server.
       - "Writing happes during writeback"...?
   3. Client B sends a message by back-channel to client A (e.g. ssh command).
   4. Client A reads FILE again.

Does client A always see 'Some_message' when it reads the file in step 4?
That's what I'd call coherence.

For that, the first truncate or write operation on client B must wait
until a synchronous invalidate request goes to the server, then the
server sends to all interested clients (A) and waits for a reply, then
reply to B, and only then can B return from the open()/write() system call.

And when client A reads the file in step 4, it must send a synchronous
message to the server which must ask B to write the delayed writeback
data immediately, and until then, the reply to A will be delayed.

Is that right?

Thanks,
-- Jamie
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html