From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CCEFD17B418 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2025 02:06:36 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1738893999; cv=none; b=RmueQMoXDdVlX081xnYYxUA4bFJyCH7VXPMjObXdD64xm5ZZPwRk8Sop4JvGOEQQoXPSVkEK/k9PS/tlK1OJwmBpKxs3r1ArVneSlzC5ZhJdPAbfq4HNwUNya+Xjoevvem4ZLnGu00kRwA4AaMtt2BCZDNK0lpeh3CSWUaHv+WY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1738893999; c=relaxed/simple; bh=SGdG/+0IvAUv2FDUjmYnZFVktwf4JG9Gz6Yqo168NDk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=T0EB3yMCtk6xf5BP1D1+JkR1XPSucp6poxBnzOk5HuSHbAc5k56IUSSBsbWMlrzaXwqJYR9zLejOD0ikkTZ3qRnsXJbVsFBGAtoTztIvoz/sgaSIx2JubaObRSFCZ15HQGMByuNzWC/efWZw04o4C67FV81dqT26uYZKAZ3+JWc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b=Suk5+Rj1; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="Suk5+Rj1" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1738893995; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=negwGvhk8J88UWnuNmaVTE7IbofbqrpwT5PQuf4vr3w=; b=Suk5+Rj18dPien21B2uUgrsV/6hjchwjfCM7iAeLkkDW89DyEMdch74qYg7R+55v7fuoyv POteuP2bfpuqkW0t4EUHQ83DiFmkOMZi++JraxM4zQI+LPSAo8oXsPo805jaNCSTKgqhkF B546SviBc4NV1ygxmDEbNfMhlu1XHcw= Received: from mx-prod-mc-03.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (ec2-54-186-198-63.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [54.186.198.63]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-277-Jkp7JE85NRmyHey07Jqnsw-1; Thu, 06 Feb 2025 21:06:34 -0500 X-MC-Unique: Jkp7JE85NRmyHey07Jqnsw-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: Jkp7JE85NRmyHey07Jqnsw Received: from mx-prod-int-03.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (mx-prod-int-03.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com [10.30.177.12]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mx-prod-mc-03.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8C91E19560B7; Fri, 7 Feb 2025 02:06:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fedora (unknown [10.72.116.126]) by mx-prod-int-03.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 190281955BD4; Fri, 7 Feb 2025 02:06:20 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2025 10:06:14 +0800 From: Ming Lei To: Vishnu ks Cc: Dan Williams , Song Liu via Lsf-pc , hch@infradead.org, yanjun.zhu@linux.dev, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [Lsf-pc] [LSF/MM/BPF TOPIC] Improving Block Layer Tracepoints for Next-Generation Backup Systems Message-ID: References: <677c56994576b_f58f29445@dwillia2-xfh.jf.intel.com.notmuch> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.0 on 10.30.177.12 On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 11:01:30PM +0530, Vishnu ks wrote: > Thanks everyone for the detailed technical feedback and clarifications > - they've been extremely valuable in understanding the fundamental > challenges and existing solutions. > > I appreciate the points about md-cluster and DRBD's network RAID > capabilities. While these are robust solutions for network-based > replication, I'm particularly interested in the point-in-time recovery > capability for scenarios like ransomware recovery, where being able to > roll back to a specific point before encryption occurred would be > valuable. > > Regarding blk_filter - I've been exploring it since it was mentioned, > and it indeed seems to be the right approach for what we're trying to > achieve. However, I've found that many of our current requirements can > actually be implemented using eBPF without additional kernel modules. > I plan to create a detailed demonstration video to share my findings > with this thread. Additionally, I'll be cleaning up and open-sourcing > our replicator utility implementation for community feedback. > > I would very much like to attend the LSF/MM/BPF summit to discuss > these ideas in person and learn more about blk_filter and proper block > layer fundamentals. Would it be possible for someone to help me with > an invitation? If one pair of bpf struct_ops are added for attaching to submit_bio() and ->bi_end_io() in bio_endio(), lots of cases can be covered: - blk filter - bio interposer - blk-snap - easier IO trace ... Then both bio and request based devices can be covered. It shouldn't be hard to figure out generic bio/bvec kfuncs for helping block IO bpf prog to do more valuable things & fun. Thanks, Ming