Re: [PATCH 0/6] Support DAX for device-mapper dm-linear devices

[Kani, Toshimitsu]

On Wed, 2016-06-22 at 12:15 -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Kani, Toshimitsu <toshi.kani@xxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2016-06-21 at 14:17 -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Tue, Jun 21 2016 at 11:44am -0400,
> > > Kani, Toshimitsu <toshi.kani@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > On Tue, 2016-06-21 at 09:41 -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Jun 20 2016 atÂÂ6:22pm -0400,
> > > > > Mike Snitzer <snitzer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > I'm now wondering if we'd be better off setting a new QUEUE_FLAG_DAX
> > > > > rather than establish GENHD_FL_DAX on the genhd?
> > > > > 
> > > > > It'd be quite a bit easier to allow upper layers (e.g. XFS and ext4)
> > > > > to check for a queue flag.
> > > >Â
> > > > I think GENHD_FL_DAX is more appropriate since DAX does not use a
> > > > request queue, except for protecting the underlining device being
> > > > disabled while direct_access() is called (b2e0d1625e19).
> > >Â
> > > The devices in question have a request_queue.ÂÂAll bio-based device have
> > > a request_queue.
> >
> > DAX-capable devices have two operation modes, bio-based and DAX.ÂÂI agree
> > that bio-based operation is associated with a request queue, and its
> > capabilities should be set to it.ÂÂDAX, on the other hand, is rather
> > independent from a request queue.
> > 
> > > I don't have a big problem with GENHD_FL_DAX.ÂÂJust wanted to point out
> > > that such block device capabilities are generally advertised in terms of
> > > a QUEUE_FLAG.
> >
> > I do not have a strong opinion, but feel a bit odd to associate DAX to a
> > request queue.
>
> Given that we do not support dax to a raw block device [1] it seems a
> gendisk flag is more misleading than request_queue flag that specifies
> what requests can be made of the device.
> 
> [1]: acc93d30d7d4 Revert "block: enable dax for raw block devices"

Oh, I see. ÂI will change to use request_queue flag.


> > > > About protecting direct_access, this patch assumes that the
> > > > underlining device cannot be disabled until dtr() is called.ÂÂIs this
> > > > correct?ÂÂIf not, I will need to call dax_map_atomic().
> > >
> > > One of the big design considerations for DM that a DM device can be
> > > suspended (with or without flush) and any new IO will be blocked until
> > > the DM device is resumed.
> > > 
> > > So ideally DM should be able to have the same capability even if using
> > > DAX.
> >
> > Supporting suspend for DAX is challenging since it allows user
> > applications to access a device directly.ÂÂOnce a device range is mmap'd,
> > there is no kernel intervention to access the range, unless we invalidate
> > user mappings.ÂÂThis isn't done today even after a driver is unbind'd from
> > a device.
> > 
> > > But that is different than what commit b2e0d1625e19 is addressing.ÂÂFor
> > > DM, I wouldn't think you'd need the extra protections that
> > > dax_map_atomic() is providing given that the underlying block device
> > > lifetime is managed via DM core's dm_get_device/dm_put_device (see also:
> > > dm.c:open_table_device/close_table_device).
> >
> > I thought so as well.ÂÂBut I realized that there is (almost) nothing that
> > can prevent the unbind operation.ÂÂIt cannot fail, either.ÂÂThis unbind
> > proceeds even when a device is in-use.ÂÂIn case of a pmem device, it is
> > only protected by pmem_release_queue(), which is called when a pmem device
> > is being deleted and calls blk_cleanup_queue() to serialize a critical
> > section between
> > blk_queue_enter() and blk_queue_exit() per b2e0d1625e19.ÂÂThis prevents
> > from a kernel DTLB fault, but does not prevent a device disappeared while
> > in-use.
> > 
> > Protecting DM's underlining device with blk_queue_enter() (or something
> > similar) requires more thoughts...ÂÂblk_queue_enter() to a DM device
> > cannot be redirected to its underlining device.ÂÂSo, this is TBD for
> > now.ÂÂBut I do not think this is a blocker issue since doing unbind to a
> > underlining device is quite harmful no matter what we do - even if it is
> > protected with blk_queue_enter().
>
> I still have the "block device removed" notification patches on my
> todo list.ÂÂIt's not a blocker, but there are scenarios where we can
> keep accessing memory via dax of a disabled device leading to memory
> corruption.ÂÂ

Right, I noticed that user applications can access mmap'd ranges on a disabled
device.

> I'll bump that up in my queue now that we are looking at
> additional scenarios where letting DAX mappings leak past the
> reconfiguration of a block device could lead to trouble.

Great. ÂWith DM, removing a underlining device while in-use can lead to
trouble, esp. with RAID0. ÂUsers need to remove a device from DM first...

Thanks,
-Toshi