Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC PATCH] Data integrity extension support for xen-block

[Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 8 Apr 2016, Bob Liu wrote:
> 
> On 04/07/2016 11:55 PM, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > On 07/04/16 12:00, Bob Liu wrote:
> >> * What's data integrity extension and why?
> >> Modern filesystems feature checksumming of data and metadata to protect 
> >> against
> >> data corruption.  However, the detection of the corruption is done at read 
> >> time
> >> which could potentially be months after the data was written.  At that 
> >> point the
> >> original data that the application tried to write is most likely lost.
> >>
> >> The solution in Linux is the data integrity framework which enables 
> >> protection
> >> information to be pinned to I/Os and sent to/received from controllers that
> >> support it. struct bio has been extended with a pointer to a struct bip 
> >> which
> >> in turn contains the integrity metadata. The bip is essentially a trimmed 
> >> down
> >> bio with a bio_vec and some housekeeping.
> >>
> >> * Issues when xen-block get involved.
> >> xen-blkfront only transmits the normal data of struct bio while the 
> >> integrity
> >> metadata buffer(struct bio_integrity_payload in each bio) is ignored.
> >>
> >> * Proposal of transmitting bio integrity payload.
> >> Adding an extra request following the normal data request, this extra 
> >> request
> >> contains the integrity payload.
> >> The xen-blkback will reconstruct an new bio with both received normal data 
> >> and
> >> integrity metadata.
> >>
> >> Welcome any better ideas, thank you!
> >>
> >> [1] http://lwn.net/Articles/280023/
> >> [2] https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/block/data-integrity.txt
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Bob Liu <bob.liu@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >>  xen/include/public/io/blkif.h |   50 
> >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>  1 file changed, 50 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/xen/include/public/io/blkif.h b/xen/include/public/io/blkif.h
> >> index 99f0326..3d8d39f 100644
> >> --- a/xen/include/public/io/blkif.h
> >> +++ b/xen/include/public/io/blkif.h
> >> @@ -635,6 +635,28 @@
> >>  #define BLKIF_OP_INDIRECT          6
> >>  
> >>  /*
> >> + * Recognized only if "feature-extra-request" is present in backend 
> >> xenbus info.
> >> + * A request with BLKIF_OP_EXTRA_FLAG indicates an extra request is 
> >> followed
> >> + * in the shared ring buffer.
> >> + *
> >> + * By this way, extra data like bio integrity payload can be transmitted 
> >> from
> >> + * frontend to backend.
> >> + *
> >> + * The 'wire' format is like:
> >> + *  Request 1: xen_blkif_request
> >> + * [Request 2: xen_blkif_extra_request]    (only if request 1 has 
> >> BLKIF_OP_EXTRA_FLAG)
> >> + *  Request 3: xen_blkif_request
> >> + *  Request 4: xen_blkif_request
> >> + * [Request 5: xen_blkif_extra_request]    (only if request 4 has 
> >> BLKIF_OP_EXTRA_FLAG)
> >> + *  ...
> >> + *  Request N: xen_blkif_request
> >> + *
> >> + * If a backend does not recognize BLKIF_OP_EXTRA_FLAG, it should *not* 
> >> create the
> >> + * "feature-extra-request" node!
> >> + */
> >> +#define BLKIF_OP_EXTRA_FLAG (0x80)
> >> +
> >> +/*
> >>   * Maximum scatter/gather segments per request.
> >>   * This is carefully chosen so that sizeof(blkif_ring_t) <= PAGE_SIZE.
> >>   * NB. This could be 12 if the ring indexes weren't stored in the same 
> >> page.
> >> @@ -703,6 +725,34 @@ struct blkif_request_indirect {
> >>  };
> >>  typedef struct blkif_request_indirect blkif_request_indirect_t;
> >>  
> >> +enum blkif_extra_request_type {
> >> +  BLKIF_EXTRA_TYPE_DIX = 1,               /* Data integrity extension 
> >> payload.  */
> >> +};
> >> +
> >> +struct bio_integrity_req {
> >> +  /*
> >> +   * Grant mapping for transmitting bio integrity payload to backend.
> >> +   */
> >> +  grant_ref_t *gref;
> >> +  unsigned int nr_grefs;
> >> +  unsigned int len;
> >> +};
> > 
> > How does the payload look like? It's structure should be defined here
> > or a reference to it's definition in case it is a standard should be
> > given.
> > 
> 
> The payload is also described using struct bio_vec(the same as bio).
> 
> /*
>  * bio integrity payload
>  */
> struct bio_integrity_payload {
>       struct bio              *bip_bio;       /* parent bio */
> 
>       struct bvec_iter        bip_iter;
> 
>       bio_end_io_t            *bip_end_io;    /* saved I/O completion fn */
> 
>       unsigned short          bip_slab;       /* slab the bip came from */
>       unsigned short          bip_vcnt;       /* # of integrity bio_vecs */
>       unsigned short          bip_max_vcnt;   /* integrity bio_vec slots */
>       unsigned short          bip_flags;      /* control flags */
> 
>       struct work_struct      bip_work;       /* I/O completion */
> 
>       struct bio_vec          *bip_vec;
>       struct bio_vec          bip_inline_vecs[0];/* embedded bvec array */
> };

There's no way we are going to embed such a Linux specific payload into 
the PV block protocol. Also, I have the feeling there are a lot of fields 
in this struct that make no sense to transmit on the ring (work_struct?).

TBH, I don't know much about this integrity thing. Why does the frontend 
needs to create and pass this bio_integrity_payload around? Couldn't this 
be created from blkback before sending the request down to the disk? Then 
blkback would check the result and either return BLKIF_RSP_OKAY or 
BLKIF_RSP_ERROR if the metadata doesn't match?
 
Roger.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel