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

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:01:16PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 06:51:39PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 06:52:24PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 09:33:13AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:

quoted

Stale data escaping containment is a security issue. Enabling
generic kernel mechanisms to *enable containment escape* is
fundamentally wrong, and relying on userspace to Do The Right Thing
is even more of a gamble, IMO.

We already have generic kernel mechanisms such as "the block device".   P

quoted

It's a practical concern because if we enable this functionality in
fallocate because it will get used by more than just special storage
apps. i.e. this can't be waved away with "only properly managed
applications will use it" arguments.

It requires a mount option.  How is this going to allow random
applications to use this feature, again?

quoted

I also don't make a habit of publicising the fact that since we
disabled the "-d unwritten=X" mkfs parameter (because of speed racer
blogs such as the above and configuration cargo-culting resulting in
unsuspecting users exposing stale data unintentionally) that the
functionality still exists in the kernel code and that it only takes
a single xfs_db command to turn off unwritten extents in XFS. i.e.
we can easily make fallocate on XFS expose stale data, filesystem
wide, without requiring mount options, kernel or application
modifications.

So you have something even more dangerous in XFS and it's in the
kernel tree?  Has Red Hat threatened to have a distro-specific patch

xfs_db is the XFS debugger, so you can only enable that bit of functionality
with magical commands, which IMHO isn't much different than people messing
with their ext4 filesystems with debugfs.  You had better know what you're
doing and if you break the filesystem you can eat both pieces. :P

quoted

to comment out this code to make sure irresponsible users can't use
it?  What I've been suggesting has even more controls that what you
have.  And I've been keeping it as an out-of-tree kernel patch mainly
because you've been arguing that it's such a horrible thing.

One could lock it down even more -- hide it behind a Kconfig option that
depends on CONFIG_EXPERT=y and itself defaults to n, require a mount option,
only allow the file owner to call no-hide-stale and only if the file is 0600
(or the appropriate group equivalents like Ted's existing patch), and upon
adding stale extents, set an inode flag that locks uid/gid/mode/flags.
Obviously root can still get to the file, but at least there's hard evidence
that one is entering the twilight zone.

quoted

quoted

Making Google's hack more widely available through the fallocate
API is entirely dependent on proving that:

Ceph is about to completely bypass the file system because of your
intransigence, and reimplement a userspace file system.  They seem to
believe it's necessary.  I'll let them make the case, because they
seem to think it's necessary.  And if not, if Linus sides with you,
and doesn't want to take the patch, I'll just keep it as a
Google-specific out-of-tree patch.  I don't *need* to have this thing
upstream.

Frankly, I second Eric Sandeen's comments -- just how bad is ext4's
unwritten extent conversion for these folks?

I ran this crappy looping microbenchmark against a ramdisk:
	fallocate 400M
	write 400M
	fsync
	rewrite the 400M
	fsync
on kernel 4.5.

For writing 400M through the page cache in 4k chunks,
ext4: ~460MB/s -> ~580MB/s (~20%)
XFS: ~660 -> ~870 (~25%)
btrfs: ~130 -> ~200 (~35%)

For writing 400M in 80M chunks,
ext4: ~480MB/s -> ~720MB/s (~30%)
XFS: ~1GB/s -> ~1.5GB/s (~35%)
btrfs: ~590MB/s -> ~590MB/s (no change)

For directio writing 400MB in 4k chunks,
ext4: 25MB/s -> 26MB/s (~5%)
XFS: 25 -> 27 (~8%)
btrfs: 22 -> 18 (...)

For directio writing 1200MB in 80M chunks,
ext4: ~2.9GB/s -> ~3.3GB/s (~13%)
XFS: 3.2 -> 3.5 (~9%)
btrfs: 2.3 -> 2.2 (...)

That's not comparing apples to apples. overwrite does not require
allocation/extent manipulation at all so it is comparing performance
of completely different file extent operations. The operations we
should be comparing are "first write" operations, namely "write over
hole with allocation" vs "write over preallocation".  Overwrite
performance should be the same regardless of the method used for the
intial write/allocation.

Eh, ok, let's compare writing an fallocated region vs writing an empty file:

(laptop this time, so the numbers aren't the same)

For writing 400M in 4k chunks,
ext4: ~720MB/s -> 620MB/s (~14%)
XFS: ~560MB/s -> 540MB/s (~4%)
btrfs: ~260 -> 580MB/s

For writing 400M in 80M chunks,
ext4: ~960MB/s -> ~730MB/s (~24%)
XFS: ~1000MB/s -> ~980MB/s (~2%)
btrfs: ~950MB/s -> ~930MB/s (~3%)

For directio writing 1200MB in 80M chunks,
ext4: ~2.9GB/s -> ~2.8GB/s (~4%)
XFS: 3.2 -> 3.2
btrfs: 2.3 -> 2.3

--D