Re: [PATCH 2/2] block: create ioctl to discard-or-zeroout a range of blocks

[Darrick J. Wong]

On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 10:09:24AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 01:01:11PM -0500, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> > That's not entirely true. Writing the blocks may cause them to be
> > allocated on the storage device (depending on which flags we feed it in
> > WRITE SAME).
> > 
> > The filesystems people were wanted the following semantics:
> > 
> >  - deallocate, don't care about contents for future reads (discard)
> >  - deallocate, guarantee zeroes on future reads (zeroout)
> >  - (re)allocate, guarantee zeroes on future reads (zeroout)
> > 
> > Maybe we just need a better naming scheme...
> 
> In filesystem terms we have two and three:
> 
>  - FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE assures zeroes are returned, but space is
>    deallocated as much as possible
>  - FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE assures zeroes are returned, AND blocks are
>    actually allocated
> 
> Returning stale blocks in a file system is a nasty security risk, so
> we don't do that, and so shouldn't storage that offers any kind
> of multi tenancy, and if it's just VMs using multiple partitions on it.

Any particular reason why we can't just implement those two fallocate
flags for block devices?

--D