All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc: "Martin K . Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
	Oleksii Kurochko <olkuroch@cisco.com>,
	Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me>,
	Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>,
	Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@gmail.com>,
	Dongsheng Yang <dongsheng.yang@easystack.cn>,
	ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org, dm-devel@redhat.com,
	linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 4/6] block: propagate BLKROSET on the whole device to all partitions
Date: Sat,  9 Jan 2021 11:42:52 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210109104254.1077093-5-hch@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210109104254.1077093-1-hch@lst.de>

Change the policy so that a BLKROSET on the whole device also affects
partitions.  To quote Martin K. Petersen:

It's very common for database folks to twiddle the read-only state of
block devices and partitions. I know that our users will find it very
counter-intuitive that setting /dev/sda read-only won't prevent writes
to /dev/sda1.

The existing behavior is inconsistent in the sense that doing:

  # blockdev --setro /dev/sda
  # echo foo > /dev/sda1

permits writes. But:

  # blockdev --setro /dev/sda
  <something triggers revalidate>
  # echo foo > /dev/sda1

doesn't.

And a subsequent:

  # blockdev --setrw /dev/sda
  # echo foo > /dev/sda1

doesn't work either since sda1's read-only policy has been inherited
from the whole-disk device.

You need to do:

  # blockdev --rereadpt

after setting the whole-disk device rw to effectuate the same change on
the partitions, otherwise they are stuck being read-only indefinitely.

However, setting the read-only policy on a partition does *not* require
the revalidate step. As a matter of fact, doing the revalidate will blow
away the policy setting you just made.

So the user needs to take different actions depending on whether they
are trying to read-protect a whole-disk device or a partition. Despite
using the same ioctl. That is really confusing.

I have lost count how many times our customers have had data clobbered
because of ambiguity of the existing whole-disk device policy. The
current behavior violates the principle of least surprise by letting the
user think they write protected the whole disk when they actually
didn't.

Suggested-by: Martin K. Petersen <martin.petersen@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Reviewed-by: Martin K. Petersen <martin.petersen@oracle.com>
---
 block/genhd.c | 3 +--
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/block/genhd.c b/block/genhd.c
index e70bdc9b0893c1..10c76320510fef 100644
--- a/block/genhd.c
+++ b/block/genhd.c
@@ -1658,8 +1658,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(set_disk_ro);
 
 int bdev_read_only(struct block_device *bdev)
 {
-	return bdev->bd_read_only ||
-		test_bit(GD_READ_ONLY, &bdev->bd_disk->state);
+	return bdev->bd_read_only || get_disk_ro(bdev->bd_disk);
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(bdev_read_only);
 
-- 
2.29.2


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me>,
	Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>,
	Oleksii Kurochko <olkuroch@cisco.com>,
	Dongsheng Yang <dongsheng.yang@easystack.cn>,
	linux-block@vger.kernel.org, dm-devel@redhat.com,
	linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org,
	"Martin K . Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
	Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@gmail.com>,
	ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 4/6] block: propagate BLKROSET on the whole device to all partitions
Date: Sat,  9 Jan 2021 11:42:52 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210109104254.1077093-5-hch@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210109104254.1077093-1-hch@lst.de>

Change the policy so that a BLKROSET on the whole device also affects
partitions.  To quote Martin K. Petersen:

It's very common for database folks to twiddle the read-only state of
block devices and partitions. I know that our users will find it very
counter-intuitive that setting /dev/sda read-only won't prevent writes
to /dev/sda1.

The existing behavior is inconsistent in the sense that doing:

  # blockdev --setro /dev/sda
  # echo foo > /dev/sda1

permits writes. But:

  # blockdev --setro /dev/sda
  <something triggers revalidate>
  # echo foo > /dev/sda1

doesn't.

And a subsequent:

  # blockdev --setrw /dev/sda
  # echo foo > /dev/sda1

doesn't work either since sda1's read-only policy has been inherited
from the whole-disk device.

You need to do:

  # blockdev --rereadpt

after setting the whole-disk device rw to effectuate the same change on
the partitions, otherwise they are stuck being read-only indefinitely.

However, setting the read-only policy on a partition does *not* require
the revalidate step. As a matter of fact, doing the revalidate will blow
away the policy setting you just made.

So the user needs to take different actions depending on whether they
are trying to read-protect a whole-disk device or a partition. Despite
using the same ioctl. That is really confusing.

I have lost count how many times our customers have had data clobbered
because of ambiguity of the existing whole-disk device policy. The
current behavior violates the principle of least surprise by letting the
user think they write protected the whole disk when they actually
didn't.

Suggested-by: Martin K. Petersen <martin.petersen@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Reviewed-by: Martin K. Petersen <martin.petersen@oracle.com>
---
 block/genhd.c | 3 +--
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/block/genhd.c b/block/genhd.c
index e70bdc9b0893c1..10c76320510fef 100644
--- a/block/genhd.c
+++ b/block/genhd.c
@@ -1658,8 +1658,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(set_disk_ro);
 
 int bdev_read_only(struct block_device *bdev)
 {
-	return bdev->bd_read_only ||
-		test_bit(GD_READ_ONLY, &bdev->bd_disk->state);
+	return bdev->bd_read_only || get_disk_ro(bdev->bd_disk);
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(bdev_read_only);
 
-- 
2.29.2


_______________________________________________
Linux-nvme mailing list
Linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvme

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me>,
	Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>,
	Oleksii Kurochko <olkuroch@cisco.com>,
	Dongsheng Yang <dongsheng.yang@easystack.cn>,
	linux-block@vger.kernel.org, dm-devel@redhat.com,
	linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org,
	"Martin K . Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
	Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@gmail.com>,
	ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [dm-devel] [PATCH 4/6] block: propagate BLKROSET on the whole device to all partitions
Date: Sat,  9 Jan 2021 11:42:52 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210109104254.1077093-5-hch@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210109104254.1077093-1-hch@lst.de>

Change the policy so that a BLKROSET on the whole device also affects
partitions.  To quote Martin K. Petersen:

It's very common for database folks to twiddle the read-only state of
block devices and partitions. I know that our users will find it very
counter-intuitive that setting /dev/sda read-only won't prevent writes
to /dev/sda1.

The existing behavior is inconsistent in the sense that doing:

  # blockdev --setro /dev/sda
  # echo foo > /dev/sda1

permits writes. But:

  # blockdev --setro /dev/sda
  <something triggers revalidate>
  # echo foo > /dev/sda1

doesn't.

And a subsequent:

  # blockdev --setrw /dev/sda
  # echo foo > /dev/sda1

doesn't work either since sda1's read-only policy has been inherited
from the whole-disk device.

You need to do:

  # blockdev --rereadpt

after setting the whole-disk device rw to effectuate the same change on
the partitions, otherwise they are stuck being read-only indefinitely.

However, setting the read-only policy on a partition does *not* require
the revalidate step. As a matter of fact, doing the revalidate will blow
away the policy setting you just made.

So the user needs to take different actions depending on whether they
are trying to read-protect a whole-disk device or a partition. Despite
using the same ioctl. That is really confusing.

I have lost count how many times our customers have had data clobbered
because of ambiguity of the existing whole-disk device policy. The
current behavior violates the principle of least surprise by letting the
user think they write protected the whole disk when they actually
didn't.

Suggested-by: Martin K. Petersen <martin.petersen@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Reviewed-by: Martin K. Petersen <martin.petersen@oracle.com>
---
 block/genhd.c | 3 +--
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/block/genhd.c b/block/genhd.c
index e70bdc9b0893c1..10c76320510fef 100644
--- a/block/genhd.c
+++ b/block/genhd.c
@@ -1658,8 +1658,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(set_disk_ro);
 
 int bdev_read_only(struct block_device *bdev)
 {
-	return bdev->bd_read_only ||
-		test_bit(GD_READ_ONLY, &bdev->bd_disk->state);
+	return bdev->bd_read_only || get_disk_ro(bdev->bd_disk);
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(bdev_read_only);
 
-- 
2.29.2

--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel


  parent reply	other threads:[~2021-01-09 10:48 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 56+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-01-09 10:42 split hard read-only vs read-only policy v3 (resend) Christoph Hellwig
2021-01-09 10:42 ` [dm-devel] " Christoph Hellwig
2021-01-09 10:42 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-01-09 10:42 ` [PATCH 1/6] dm: use bdev_read_only to check if a device is read-only Christoph Hellwig
2021-01-09 10:42   ` [dm-devel] " Christoph Hellwig
2021-01-09 10:42   ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-01-09 10:42 ` [PATCH 2/6] block: remove the NULL bdev check in bdev_read_only Christoph Hellwig
2021-01-09 10:42   ` [dm-devel] " Christoph Hellwig
2021-01-09 10:42   ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-01-09 20:14   ` Chaitanya Kulkarni
2021-01-09 20:14     ` [dm-devel] " Chaitanya Kulkarni
2021-01-09 20:14     ` Chaitanya Kulkarni
2021-01-10 14:59   ` Hannes Reinecke
2021-01-10 14:59     ` [dm-devel] " Hannes Reinecke
2021-01-10 14:59     ` Hannes Reinecke
2021-01-09 10:42 ` [PATCH 3/6] block: add a hard-readonly flag to struct gendisk Christoph Hellwig
2021-01-09 10:42   ` [dm-devel] " Christoph Hellwig
2021-01-09 10:42   ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-01-09 10:42 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2021-01-09 10:42   ` [dm-devel] [PATCH 4/6] block: propagate BLKROSET on the whole device to all partitions Christoph Hellwig
2021-01-09 10:42   ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-01-10 15:00   ` Hannes Reinecke
2021-01-10 15:00     ` [dm-devel] " Hannes Reinecke
2021-01-10 15:00     ` Hannes Reinecke
2021-01-09 10:42 ` [PATCH 5/6] rbd: remove the ->set_read_only method Christoph Hellwig
2021-01-09 10:42   ` [dm-devel] " Christoph Hellwig
2021-01-09 10:42   ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-01-09 10:42 ` [PATCH 6/6] nvme: allow revalidate to set a namespace read-only Christoph Hellwig
2021-01-09 10:42   ` [dm-devel] " Christoph Hellwig
2021-01-09 10:42   ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-01-09 20:27   ` Chaitanya Kulkarni
2021-01-09 20:27     ` [dm-devel] " Chaitanya Kulkarni
2021-01-09 20:27     ` Chaitanya Kulkarni
2021-01-10 15:01   ` Hannes Reinecke
2021-01-10 15:01     ` [dm-devel] " Hannes Reinecke
2021-01-10 15:01     ` Hannes Reinecke
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2020-12-08 16:28 split hard read-only vs read-only policy v3 Christoph Hellwig
2020-12-08 16:28 ` [PATCH 4/6] block: propagate BLKROSET on the whole device to all partitions Christoph Hellwig
2020-12-08 16:28   ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-12-08 16:47   ` Hannes Reinecke
2020-12-08 16:47     ` Hannes Reinecke
2020-12-09  2:51   ` Ming Lei
2020-12-09  2:51     ` Ming Lei
2020-12-07 13:19 split hard read-only vs read-only policy v2 Christoph Hellwig
2020-12-07 13:19 ` [PATCH 4/6] block: propagate BLKROSET on the whole device to all partitions Christoph Hellwig
2020-12-07 13:19   ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-12-08  5:27   ` Martin K. Petersen
2020-12-08  5:27     ` Martin K. Petersen
2020-12-08  9:25     ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-12-08  9:25       ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-12-08 12:41       ` Johannes Thumshirn
2020-12-08 12:41         ` Johannes Thumshirn
2020-12-08 10:29   ` Ming Lei
2020-12-08 10:29     ` Ming Lei
2020-12-08 10:59     ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-12-08 10:59       ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-12-09  1:23       ` Ming Lei
2020-12-09  1:23         ` Ming Lei

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20210109104254.1077093-5-hch@lst.de \
    --to=hch@lst.de \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=dm-devel@redhat.com \
    --cc=dongsheng.yang@easystack.cn \
    --cc=idryomov@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
    --cc=olkuroch@cisco.com \
    --cc=sagi@grimberg.me \
    --cc=snitzer@redhat.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.