Re: [PATCH] Allow userspace block device implementation

[Linus Torvalds]

On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Andi Kleen wrote:

> Kyle Moffett <kyle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >
> >   (1) The ability to rearrange, resize, and restructure
> > partition-tables on the fly.  The existing "re-read partition tables"
> > infrastructure does not safely and reasonably handle changes to the
> > partition-table while partitions are mounted. 
> 
> It doesn't today (and I really hate it too), but is there a hard reason it
> couldn't be fixed to support that properly? 

If something has a partition open (and it doesn't really even have to be a 
mounted filesystem, altough that's obviously the most relevant case), how 
can you reasonably change the partition from underneath it? So I assume 
you mean that partitions were opened earlier (for a mount) would not be 
touched.

And these days, that _should_ just work. The "reread partition table" 
operation should just leave the old bdev's around (so a mounted filesystem 
simply won't _see_ the new partitions, but will continue to use the old 
one), and for all I know that might even work these days.

[ Here "these days" is admittedly only in comparison to the _original_ 
 Linux code, which used block numbers. Many years ago. ]

Filesystems long ago _used_ to index things by device number and block - 
and that meant that re-reading partition tables was _really_ dangerous, 
because the "device number" would just magically mean something else for a 
mounted filesystem. But we've indexed things by bdev for a longish time 
now, and most (all?) filesystems use "sb_bread()" instead of bread etc.

So I think re-reading the partition tables should be safe these days. It 
definitely didn't _use_ to be the case due to dev_t issues, but that's 
really ancient.

It may be that we just have the old check in place ("don't allow 
re-reading if something has mounted a partition"), and we could just get 
rid of it. I have not looked. 

But if you actually meant that re-reading the partition table should 
_change_ a "struct block_dev" that is in use, then I think that would be a 
bad idea. At the very least, it should involve a re-mount or something.

		Linus
--
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/