Re: "Enhanced" MD code avaible for review

[Jeff Garzik]

Justin T. Gibbs wrote:
> > > So you are saying that this presents an unrecoverable situation?
> >
> > No, I'm saying that the data phase need not have a bunch of in-kernel
> > checks, it should be generated correctly from the source.
>
>
> The SCSI drivers validate the controller's data phase based on the
> expected phase presented to them from an upper layer.  I never talked
> about adding checks that make little sense or are overly expensive.  You
> seem to equate validation with huge expense.  That is just not the
> general case.
>
>
> > > Hmm.  I've never had someone tell me that my SCSI drivers are slow.
> >
> > This would be noticed in the CPU utilization area.  Your drivers are
> > probably a long way from being CPU-bound.
>
>
> I very much doubt that.  There are perhaps four or five tests in the
> I/O path where some value already in a cache line that has to be accessed
> anyway is compared against a constant.  We're talking about something
> down in the noise of any type of profiling you could perform.  As I said,
> validation makes sense where there is basically no-cost to do it.
>
>
> > > I don't think that your statement is true in the general case.  My
> > > belief is that validation should occur where it is cheap and efficient
> > > to do so.  More expensive checks should be pushed into diagnostic code
> > > that is disabled by default, but the code *should be there*.  In any event,
> > > for RAID meta-data, we're talking about code that is *not* in the common
> > > or time critical path of the kernel.  A few dozen lines of validation code
> > > there has almost no impact on the size of the kernel and yields huge
> > > benefits for debugging and maintaining the code.  This is even more
> > > the case in Linux the end user is often your test lab.
> >
> > It doesn't scale terribly well, because the checks themselves become a
> > source of bugs.
>
>
> So now the complaint is that validation code is somehow harder to write
> and maintain than the rest of the code?

Actually, yes.  Validation of random user input has always been a source 
of bugs (usually in edge cases), in Linux and in other operating 
systems.  It is often the area where security bugs are found.

Basically you want to avoid add checks for conditions that don't occur 
in properly written software, and make sure that the kernel always 
generates correct requests.  Obviously that excludes anything on the 
target side, but other than that...  in userland, a priveleged user is 
free to do anything they wish, including violate protocols, cook their 
disk, etc.

	Jeff



-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/