Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S932371AbcCCSJ2 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 3 Mar 2016 13:09:28 -0500
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:49715 "EHLO
	bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1754099AbcCCSJ0 (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 3 Mar 2016 13:09:26 -0500
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 10:09:24 -0800
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        shane.seymour@hpe.com, Bruce Fields <bfields@fieldses.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@poochiereds.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] block: create ioctl to discard-or-zeroout a range of
 blocks
Message-ID: <20160303180924.GA4116@infradead.org>
References: <20160302040932.16685.62789.stgit@birch.djwong.org>
 <20160302040947.16685.42926.stgit@birch.djwong.org>
 <CA+55aFx_NPn0VYk=+Ad5S_r=D6J1xFmWmf7JzQ7RmkwKmdkYOg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160302225601.GB21890@birch.djwong.org>
 <CA+55aFyNPnjJ-Nsu3bMr+HuLQnkj1B8FMddNnXW7HJqxdUzJmQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <yq1bn6v8mqg.fsf@sermon.lab.mkp.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <yq1bn6v8mqg.fsf@sermon.lab.mkp.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from <hch@infradead.org> by bombadil.infradead.org. See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 977
Lines: 23

On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 01:01:11PM -0500, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> That's not entirely true. Writing the blocks may cause them to be
> allocated on the storage device (depending on which flags we feed it in
> WRITE SAME).
> 
> The filesystems people were wanted the following semantics:
> 
>  - deallocate, don't care about contents for future reads (discard)
>  - deallocate, guarantee zeroes on future reads (zeroout)
>  - (re)allocate, guarantee zeroes on future reads (zeroout)
> 
> Maybe we just need a better naming scheme...

In filesystem terms we have two and three:

 - FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE assures zeroes are returned, but space is
   deallocated as much as possible
 - FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE assures zeroes are returned, AND blocks are
   actually allocated

Returning stale blocks in a file system is a nasty security risk, so
we don't do that, and so shouldn't storage that offers any kind
of multi tenancy, and if it's just VMs using multiple partitions on it.