NFSv4 Working Group David L. Black Internet Draft Stephen Fridella Expires: February 28, 2007 EMC Corporation August 30, 2006 pNFS Block/Volume Layout draft-ietf-nfsv4-pnfs-block-01.txt Status of this Memo By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html This Internet-Draft will expire in February 2007. Abstract Parallel NFS (pNFS) extends NFSv4 to allow clients to directly access file data on the storage used by the NFSv4 server. This ability to bypass the server for data access can increase both performance and parallelism, but requires additional client functionality for data access, some of which is dependent on the class of storage used. The main pNFS operations draft specifies storage-class-independent extensions to NFS; this draft specifies the additional extensions (primarily data structures) for use of pNFS with block and volume based storage. Black Expires February 2007 [Page 1] Internet-Draft pNFS Block/Volume Layout August 2006 Conventions used in this document The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [RFC2119]. Table of Contents 1. Introduction...................................................3 2. Block Layout Description.......................................3 2.1. Background and Architecture...............................3 2.2. Data Structures: Extents and Extent Lists.................4 2.2.1. Layout Requests and Extent Lists.....................6 2.2.2. Layout Commits.......................................7 2.2.3. Layout Returns.......................................8 2.2.4. Client Copy-on-Write Processing......................9 2.2.5. Extents are Permissions.............................10 2.2.6. End-of-file Processing..............................11 2.3. Volume Identification....................................12 2.4. Crash Recovery Issues....................................14 3. Security Considerations.......................................14 4. Conclusions...................................................16 5. IANA Considerations...........................................16 6. Revision History..............................................16 7. Acknowledgments...............................................17 8. References....................................................17 8.1. Normative References.....................................17 8.2. Informative References...................................18 Author's Addresses...............................................18 Intellectual Property Statement..................................18 Disclaimer of Validity...........................................19 Copyright Statement..............................................19 Acknowledgment...................................................19 Black Expires February 2007 [Page 2] Internet-Draft pNFS Block/Volume Layout August 2006 1. Introduction Figure 1 shows the overall architecture of a pNFS system: +-----------+ |+-----------+ +-----------+ ||+-----------+ | | ||| | NFSv4 + pNFS | | +|| Clients |<------------------------------>| Server | +| | | | +-----------+ | | ||| +-----------+ ||| | ||| | ||| +-----------+ | ||| |+-----------+ | ||+----------------||+-----------+ | |+-----------------||| | | +------------------+|| Storage |------------+ +| Systems | +-----------+ Figure 1 pNFS Architecture The overall approach is that pNFS-enhanced clients obtain sufficient information from the server to enable them to access the underlying storage (on the Storage Systems) directly. See the pNFS portion of [NFSV4.1] for more details. This draft is concerned with access from pNFS clients to Storage Systems over storage protocols based on blocks and volumes, such as the SCSI protocol family (e.g., parallel SCSI, FCP for Fibre Channel, iSCSI, SAS). This class of storage is referred to as block/volume storage. While the Server to Storage System protocol is not of concern for interoperability here, it will typically also be a block/volume protocol when clients use block/ volume protocols. 2. Block Layout Description 2.1. Background and Architecture The fundamental storage abstraction supported by block/volume storage is a storage volume consisting of a sequential series of fixed size blocks. This can be thought of as a logical disk; it may be realized by the Storage System as a physical disk, a portion of a physical disk or something more complex (e.g., concatenation, striping, RAID, Black Expires February 2007 [Page 3] Internet-Draft pNFS Block/Volume Layout August 2006 and combinations thereof) involving multiple physical disks or portions thereof. A pNFS layout for this block/volume class of storage is responsible for mapping from an NFS file (or portion of a file) to the blocks of storage volumes that contain the file. The blocks are expressed as extents with 64 bit offsets and lengths using the existing NFSv4 offset4 and length4 types. Clients must be able to perform I/O to the block extents without affecting additional areas of storage (especially important for writes), therefore extents MUST be aligned to 512-byte boundaries, and SHOULD be aligned to the block size used by the NFSv4 server in managing the actual filesystem (4 kilobytes and 8 kilobytes are common block sizes). This block size is available as an NFSv4 attribute - see Section 11.4 of [NFSV4.1]. The pNFS operation for requesting a layout (LAYOUTGET) includes the "pnfs_layoutiomode4 iomode" argument which indicates whether the requested layout is for read-only use or read-write use. A read-only layout may contain holes that are read as zero, whereas a read-write layout will contain allocated, but uninitialized storage in those holes (read as zero, can be written by client). This draft also supports client participation in copy on write by providing both read-only and uninitialized storage for the same range in a layout. Reads are initially performed on the read-only storage, with writes going to the uninitialized storage. After the first write that initializes the uninitialized storage, all reads are performed to that now-initialized writeable storage, and the corresponding read- only storage is no longer used. 2.2. Data Structures: Extents and Extent Lists A pNFS block layout is a list of extents within a flat array of 512- byte data blocks known as a volume. A volume may correspond to a single logical unit in a SAN, or a more complex aggregation of multiple logical units. The details of the volume topology can be determined by using the GETDEVICEINFO or GETDEVICELIST operation (see discussion of volume identification, section 2.3 below). The block layout describes the individual block extents on the volume that make up the file. Each individual extent MUST be at least 512-byte aligned. Black Expires February 2007 [Page 4] Internet-Draft pNFS Block/Volume Layout August 2006 enum extentState4 { READ_WRITE_DATA = 0, /* the data located by this extent is valid for reading and writing. */ READ_DATA = 1, /* the data located by this extent is valid for reading only; it may not be written. */ INVALID_DATA = 2, /* the location is valid; the data is invalid. It is a newly (pre-) allocated extent. There is physical space on the volume. */ NONE_DATA = 3, /* the location is invalid. It is a hole in the file. There is no physical space on the volume. */ }; struct pnfs_block_extent { offset4 offset; /* the starting offset in the file */ length4 length; /* the size of the extent */ offset4 storage_offset; /* the starting offset in the volume */ extentState4 es; /* the state of this extent */ }; struct pnfs_block_layout { pnfs_deviceid4 volume; /* logical volume on which file is stored. */ pnfs_block_extent extents<>; /* extents which make up this layout. */ }; Black Expires February 2007 [Page 5] Internet-Draft pNFS Block/Volume Layout August 2006 The block layout consists of an identifier of the logical volume on which the file is stored, followed by a list of extents which map the logical regions of the file to physical locations on the volume. The "storage_offset" field within each extent identifies a location on the logical volume described by the "volume" field in the layout. The client is responsible for translating this logical offset into an offset on the appropriate underlying SAN logical unit. Each extent maps a logical region of the file onto a portion of the specified logical volume. The file_offset, extent_length, and es fields for an extent returned from the server are always valid. The interpretation of the storage_offset field depends on the value of es as follows: o READ_WRITE_DATA means that storage_offset is valid, and points to valid/initialized data that can be read and written. o READ_DATA means that storage_offset is valid and points to valid/ initialized data which can only be read. Write operations are prohibited; the client may need to request a read-write layout. o INVALID_DATA means that storage_offset is valid, but points to invalid uninitialized data. This data must not be physically read from the disk until it has been initialized. A read request for an INVALID_DATA extent must fill the user buffer with zeros. Write requests must write whole server-sized blocks to the disk with bytes not initialized by the user must be set to zero. Any write to storage in an INVALID_DATA extent changes the written portion of the extent to READ_WRITE_DATA; the pNFS client is responsible for reporting this change via LAYOUTCOMMIT. o NONE_DATA means that storage_offset is not valid, and this extent may not be used to satisfy write requests. Read requests may be satisfied by zero-filling as for INVALID_DATA. NONE_DATA extents are returned by requests for readable extents; they are never returned if the request was for a writeable extent. The extent list lists all relevant extents in increasing order of the file_offset of each extent; any ties are broken by increasing order of the extent state (es). 2.2.1. Layout Requests and Extent Lists Each request for a layout specifies at least three parameters: offset, desired size, and minimum size. If the status of a request indicates success, the extent list returned must meet the following criteria: Black Expires February 2007 [Page 6] Internet-Draft pNFS Block/Volume Layout August 2006 o A request for a readable (but not writeable) layout returns only READ_DATA or NONE_DATA extents (but not INVALID_DATA or READ_WRITE_DATA extents). o A request for a writeable layout returns READ_WRITE_DATA or INVALID_DATA extents (but not NONE_DATA extents). It may also return READ_DATA extents only when the offset ranges in those extents are also covered by INVALID_DATA extents to permit writes. o The first extent in the list MUST contain the starting offset. o The total size of extents in the extent list MUST cover at least the minimum size and no more than the desired size. One exception is allowed: the total size MAY be smaller if only readable extents were requested and EOF is encountered. o Extents in the extent list MUST be logically contiguous for a read-only layout. For a read-write layout, the set of writable extents (i.e., excluding READ_DATA extents) MUST be logically contiguous. Every READ_DATA extent in a read-write layout MUST be covered by an INVALID_DATA extent. This overlap of READ_DATA and INVALID_DATA extents is the only permitted extent overlap. o Extents MUST be ordered in the list by starting offset, with READ_DATA extents preceding INVALID_DATA extents in the case of equal file_offsets. 2.2.2. Layout Commits struct pnfs_block_layoutupdate { pnfs_block_extent commit_list<>; /* list of extents to which now contain valid data. */ bool make_version; /* client requests server to create copy-on-write image of this file. */ } The "pnfs_block_layoutupdate" structure is used by the client as the block-protocol specific argument in a LAYOUTCOMMIT operation. The "commit_list" field is an extent list covering regions of the file layout that were previously in the INVALID_DATA state, but have been written by the client and should now be considered in the READ_WRITE_DATA state. It should be noted that the server may be unable to commit regions at a granularity smaller than a file-system Black Expires February 2007 [Page 7] Internet-Draft pNFS Block/Volume Layout August 2006 block (typically 4KB or 8KB). As noted above, the block-size that the server uses is available as an NFSv4 attribute, and any extents included in the "commit_list" must be aligned on this granularity. If the client believes that its actions have moved the end-of-file into the middle of a block being committed, the client MUST write zeroes from the end-of-file to the end of that block before committing the block. Failure to do so may result in junk (uninitialized data) appearing in that area if the file is subsequently extended by moving the end-of-file. The "make_version" field of the structure is a flag that the client may set to request that the server create a copy-on-write image of the file (pNFS clients may be involved in this operation - see section 2.2.4, below). In anticipation of this operation the client which sets the "make_version" flag in the LAYOUTCOMMIT operation should immediately mark all extents in the layout that is possesses as state READ_DATA. Future writes to the file require a new LAYOUTGET operation to the server with an "iomode" set to LAYOUTIOMODE_RW. 2.2.3. Layout Returns struct pnfs_block_layoutreturn { pnfs_block_extent rel_list<>; /* list of extents the client will no longer use. */ } The "rel_list" field is an extent list covering regions of the file layout that are no longer needed by the client. Including extents in the "rel_list" for a LAYOUTRETURN operation represents an explicit release of resources by the client, usually done for the purpose of avoiding unnecessary CB_LAYOUTRECALL operations in the future. Note that the block/volume layout supports unilateral layout revocation. When a layout is unilaterally revoked by the server, usually due to the client's lease timer expiring or the client failing to return a layout in a timely manner, it is important for the sake of correctness that any in-flight I/Os that the client issued before the layout was revoked are rejected at the storage. For the block/volume protocol, this is possible by fencing a client with an expired layout timer from the physical storage. Note, however, that the granularity of this operation can only be at the host/logical-unit level. Thus, if one of a client's layouts is unilaterally revoked by the server, it will effectively render Black Expires February 2007 [Page 8] Internet-Draft pNFS Block/Volume Layout August 2006 useless *all* of the client's layouts for files in the same filesystem. 2.2.4. Client Copy-on-Write Processing Distinguishing the READ_WRITE_DATA and READ_DATA extent types in combination with the allowed overlap of READ_DATA extents with INVALID_DATA extents allows copy-on-write processing to be done by pNFS clients. In classic NFS, this operation would be done by the server. Since pNFS enables clients to do direct block access, it is useful for clients to participate in copy-on-write operations. All block/volume pNFS clients MUST support this copy-on-write processing. When a client wishes to write data covered by a READ_DATA extent, it MUST have requested a writable layout from the server; that layout will contain INVALID_DATA extents to cover all the data ranges of that layout's READ_DATA extents. More precisely, for any file_offset range covered by one or more READ_DATA extents in a writable layout, the server MUST include one or more INVALID_DATA extents in the layout that cover the same file_offset range. When performing a write to such an area of a layout, the client MUST effectively copy the data from the READ_DATA extent for any partial blocks of file_offset and range, merge in the changes to be written, and write the result to the INVALID_DATA extent for the blocks for that file_offset and range. That is, if entire blocks of data are to be overwritten by an operation, the corresponding READ_DATA blocks need not be fetched, but any partial-block writes must be merged with data fetched via READ_DATA extents before storing the result via INVALID_DATA extents. For the purposes of this discussion, "entire blocks" and "partial blocks" refer to the server's file-system block size. Storing of data in an INVALID_DATA extent converts the written portion of the INVALID_DATA extent to a READ_WRITE_DATA extent; all subsequent reads MUST be performed from this extent; the corresponding portion of the READ_DATA extent MUST NOT be used after storing data in an INVALID_DATA extent. In the LAYOUTCOMMIT operation that normally sends updated layout information back to the server, for writable data, some INVALID_DATA extents may be committed as READ_WRITE_DATA extents, signifying that the storage at the corresponding storage_offset values has been stored into and is now to be considered as valid data to be read. READ_DATA extents are not committed to the server. For extents that the client receives via LAYOUTGET as INVALID_DATA and returns via LAYOUTCOMMIT as READ_WRITE_DATA, the server will understand that the READ_DATA mapping for that extent is no longer valid or necessary for that file. Black Expires February 2007 [Page 9] Internet-Draft pNFS Block/Volume Layout August 2006 2.2.5. Extents are Permissions Layout extents returned to pNFS clients grant permission to read or write; READ_DATA and NONE_DATA are read-only (NONE_DATA reads as zeroes), READ_WRITE_DATA and INVALID_DATA are read/write, (INVALID_DATA reads as zeros, any write converts it to READ_WRITE_DATA). This is the only client means of obtaining permission to perform direct I/O to storage devices; a pNFS client MUST NOT perform direct I/O operations that are not permitted by an extent held by the client. Client adherence to this rule places the pNFS server in control of potentially conflicting storage device operations, enabling the server to determine what does conflict and how to avoid conflicts by granting and recalling extents to/from clients. Block/volume class storage devices are not required to perform read and write operations atomically. Overlapping concurrent read and write operations to the same data may cause the read to return a mixture of before-write and after-write data. Overlapping write operations can be worse, as the result could be a mixture of data from the two write operations; this can be particularly nasty if the underlying storage is striped and the operations complete in different orders on different stripes. A pNFS server can avoid these conflicts by implementing a single writer XOR multiple readers concurrency control policy when there are multiple clients who wish to access the same data. This policy SHOULD be implemented when storage devices do not provide atomicity for concurrent read/write and write/write operations to the same data. A client that makes a layout request that conflicts with an existing layout delegation will be rejected with the error NFS4ERR_LAYOUTTRYLATER. This client is then expected to retry the request after a short interval. During this interval the server needs to recall the conflicting portion of the layout delegation from the client that currently holds it. This reject-and-retry approach does not prevent client starvation when there is contention for the layout of a particular file. For this reason a pNFS server SHOULD implement a mechanism to prevent starvation. One possibility is that the server can maintain a queue of rejected layout requests. Each new layout request can be checked to see if it conflicts with a previous rejected request, and if so, the newer request can be rejected. Once the original requesting client retries its request, its entry in the rejected request queue can be cleared, or the entry in the rejected request queue can be removed when it reaches a certain age. Black Expires February 2007 [Page 10] Internet-Draft pNFS Block/Volume Layout August 2006 NFSv4 supports mandatory locks and share reservations. These are mechanisms that clients can use to restrict the set of I/O operations that are permissible to other clients. Since all I/O operations ultimately arrive at the NFSv4 server for processing, the server is in a position to enforce these restrictions. However, with pNFS layout delegations, I/Os will be issued from the clients that hold the delegations directly to the storage devices that host the data. These devices have no knowledge of files, mandatory locks, or share reservations, and are not in a position to enforce such restrictions. For this reason the NFSv4 server MUST NOT grant layout delegations that conflict with mandatory locks or share reservations. Further, if a conflicting mandatory lock request or a conflicting open request arrives at the server, the server MUST recall the part of the layout delegation in conflict with the request before processing the request. 2.2.6. End-of-file Processing The end-of-file location can be changed in two ways: implicitly as the result of a WRITE or LAYOUTCOMMIT beyond the current end-of-file, or explicitly as the result of a SETATTR request. Typically, when a file is truncated by an NFSv4 client via the SETATTR call, the server frees any disk blocks belonging to the file which are beyond the new end-of-file byte, and may write zeros to the portion of the new end- of-file block beyond the new end-of-file byte. These actions render any pNFS layouts which refer to the blocks that are freed or written semantically invalid. Therefore, the server MUST recall from clients the portions of any pNFS layouts which refer to blocks that will be freed or written by the server before processing the truncate request. These recalls may take time to complete; as explained in [NFSv4.1], if the server cannot respond to the client SETATTR request in a reasonable amount of time, it SHOULD reply to the client with the error NFS4ERR_DELAY. Blocks in the INVALID_DATA state which lie beyond the new end-of-file block present a special case. The server has reserved these blocks for use by a pNFS client with a writable layout for the file, but the client has yet to commit the blocks, and they are not yet a part of the file mapping on disk. The server MAY free these blocks while processing the SETATTR request. If so, the server MUST recall any layouts from pNFS clients which refer to the blocks before processing the truncate. If the server does not free the INVALID_DATA blocks while processing the SETATTR request, it need not recall layouts which refer only to the INVALID DATA blocks. Black Expires February 2007 [Page 11] Internet-Draft pNFS Block/Volume Layout August 2006 When a file is extended implicitly by a WRITE or LAYOUTCOMMIT beyond the current end-of-file, or extended explicitly by a SETATTR request, the server need not recall any portions of any pNFS layouts. 2.3. Volume Identification Storage Systems such as storage arrays can have multiple physical network ports that need not be connected to a common network, resulting in a pNFS client having simultaneous multipath access to the same storage volumes via different ports on different networks. The networks may not even be the same technology - for example, access to the same volume via both iSCSI and Fibre Channel is possible, hence network address are difficult to use for volume identification. For this reason, this pNFS block layout identifies storage volumes by content, for example providing the means to match (unique portions of) labels used by volume managers. Any block pNFS system using this layout MUST support a means of content-based unique volume identification that can be employed via the data structure given here. struct sigComponent { /* disk signature component */ offset4 sig_offset; /* byte offset of component */ length4 sig_length; /* byte length of component */ opaque contents<>; /* contents of this component of the signature (this is opaque) */ }; enum pnfs_block_volume_type { VOLUME_SIMPLE = 0, /* volume maps to a single LU */ VOLUME_SLICE = 1, /* volume is a slice of another volume */ VOLUME_CONCAT = 2, /* volume is a concatenation of multiple volumes */ VOLUME_STRIPE = 3, /* volume is striped across multiple volumes */ }; Black Expires February 2007 [Page 12] Internet-Draft pNFS Block/Volume Layout August 2006 struct pnfs_block_slice_volume_info { offset4 start; /* block-offset of the start of the slice */ length4 length; /* length of slice in blocks */ pnfs_deviceid4 volume; /* volume which is sliced */ }; struct pnfs_block_concat_volume_info { pnfs_deviceid4 volumes<>; /* volumes which are concatenated */ }; struct pnfs_block_stripe_volume_info { length4 stripe_unit; /* size of stripe */ pnfs_deviceid4 volumes<>; /* volumes which are striped across*/ }; union pnfs_block_deviceaddr4 switch (pnfs_block_volume_type type) { case VOLUME_SIMPLE: sigComponent ds; /* disk signature */ case VOLUME_SLICE: pnfs_block_slice_volume_info slice_info; case VOLUME_CONCAT: pnfs_block_concat_volume_info concat_info; case VOLUME_STRIPE: Black Expires February 2007 [Page 13] Internet-Draft pNFS Block/Volume Layout August 2006 pnfs_block_stripe_volume_info stripe_info; default: void; }; The "pnfs_block_deviceaddr4" union is a recursive structure that allows arbitrarily complex nested volume structures to be encoded. The types of aggregations that are allowed are stripes, concatenations, and slices. The base case is a volume which maps simply to one logical unit in the SAN, identified by the "sigComponent" structure. Each SAN logical unit is content- identified by a disk signature made up of extents within blocks and contents that must match. The "pnfs_block_deviceaddr4" union is returned by the server as the storage-protocol-specific opaque field in the "pnfs_deviceaddr4" structure, in response to the GETDEVICEINFO or GETDEVICELIST operations. Note that the opaque "contents" field in the "sigComponent" structure MUST NOT be interpreted as a zero- terminated string, as it may contain embedded zero-valued octets. It contains exactly sig_length octets. There are no restrictions on alignment (e.g., neither sig_offset nor sig_length are required to be multiples of 4). 2.4. Crash Recovery Issues When the server crashes while the client holds a writable layout, and the client has written data to blocks covered by the layout, and the blocks are still in the INVALID_DATA state, the client has two options for recovery. If the data that has been written to these blocks is still cached by the client, the client can simply re-write the data via NFSv4, once the server has come back online. However, if the data is no longer in the client's cache, the client MUST NOT attempt to source the data from the data servers. Instead, it should attempt to commit the blocks in question to the server during the server's recovery grace period, by sending a LAYOUTCOMMIT with the "reclaim" flag set to true. This process is described in detail in [NFSv4.1] section 21.42.4. 3. Security Considerations Typically, SAN disk arrays and SAN protocols provide access control mechanisms (access-logics, lun masking, etc.) which operate at the granularity of individual hosts. The functionality provided by such mechanisms makes it possible for the server to "fence" individual client machines from certain physical disks---that is to say, to Black Expires February 2007 [Page 14] Internet-Draft pNFS Block/Volume Layout August 2006 prevent individual client machines from reading or writing to certain physical disks. Finer-grained access control methods are not generally available. For this reason, certain security responsibilities are delegated to pNFS clients for block/volume layouts. Block/volume storage systems generally control access at a volume granularity, and hence pNFS clients have to be trusted to only perform accesses allowed by the layout extents they currently hold (e.g., and not access storage for files on which a layout extent is not held). In general, the server will not be able to prevent a client which holds a layout for a file from accessing parts of the physical disk not covered by the layout. Similarly, the server will not be able to prevent a client from accessing blocks covered by a layout that it has already returned. This block-based level of protection must be provided by the client software. An alternative method of block/volume protocol use is for the storage devices to export virtualized block addresses, which do reflect the files to which blocks belong. These virtual block addresses are exported to pNFS clients via layouts. This allows the storage device to make appropriate access checks, while mapping virtual block addresses to physical block addresses. In environments where the security requirements are such that client-side protection from access to storage outside of the layout is not sufficient pNFS block/volume storage layouts for pNFS SHOULD NOT be used, unless the storage device is able to implement the appropriate access checks, via use of virtualized block addresses, or other means. This also has implications for some NFSv4 functionality outside pNFS. For instance, if a file is covered by a mandatory read-only lock, the server can ensure that only readable layouts for the file are granted to pNFS clients. However, it is up to each pNFS client to ensure that the readable layout is used only to service read requests, and not to allow writes to the existing parts of the file. Since block/volume storage systems are generally not capable of enforcing such file-based security, in environments where pNFS clients cannot be trusted to enforce such policies, pNFS block/volume storage layouts SHOULD NOT be used. Access to block/volume storage is logically at a lower layer of the I/O stack than NFSv4, and hence NFSv4 security is not directly applicable to protocols that access such storage directly. Depending on the protocol, some of the security mechanisms provided by NFSv4 (e.g., encryption, cryptographic integrity) may not be available, or may be provided via different means. At one extreme, pNFS with block/volume storage can be used with storage access protocols (e.g., parallel SCSI) that provide essentially no security functionality. At the other extreme, pNFS may be used with storage protocols such as Black Expires February 2007 [Page 15] Internet-Draft pNFS Block/Volume Layout August 2006 iSCSI that provide significant functionality. It is the responsibility of those administering and deploying pNFS with a block/volume storage access protocol to ensure that appropriate protection is provided to that protocol (physical security is a common means for protocols not based on IP). In environments where the security requirements for the storage protocol cannot be met, pNFS block/volume storage layouts SHOULD NOT be used. When security is available for a storage protocol, it is generally at a different granularity and with a different notion of identity than NFSv4 (e.g., NFSv4 controls user access to files, iSCSI controls initiator access to volumes). The responsibility for enforcing appropriate correspondences between these security layers is placed upon the pNFS client. As with the issues in the first paragraph of this section, in environments where the security requirements are such that client-side protection from access to storage outside of the layout is not sufficient, pNFS block/volume storage layouts SHOULD NOT be used. 4. Conclusions This draft specifies the block/volume layout type for pNFS and associated functionality. 5. IANA Considerations There are no IANA considerations in this document. All pNFS IANA Considerations are covered in [NFSV4.1]. 6. Revision History -00: Initial Version as draft-black-pnfs-block-00 -01: Rework discussion of extents as locks to talk about extents granting access permissions. Rewrite operation ordering section to discuss deadlocks and races that can cause problems. Add new section on recall completion. Add client copy-on-write based on text from Craig Everhart. -02: Fix glitches in extent state descriptions. Describe most issues as RESOLVED. Most of Section 3 has been incorporated into the the main PNFD draft, add NOTE to that effect and say that it will be deleted in the next version of this draft (which should be a draft- ietf-nfsv4 draft). Cleaning up a number of things have been left to that draft revision, including the interlocks with the types in the main pNFS draft, layout striping support, and finishing the Security Considerations section. Black Expires February 2007 [Page 16] Internet-Draft pNFS Block/Volume Layout August 2006 -00: New version as draft-ietf-nfsv4-pnfs-block. Removed resolved operations issues (Section 3). Align types with main pNFS draft (which is now part of the NFSv4.1 minor version draft), add volume striping and slicing support. New operations issues are in Section 3 - the need for a "reclaim bit" and EOF concerns are the two major issues. Extended and improved the Security Considerations section, but it still needs work. Added 1-sentence conclusion that also still needs work. -01: Changed definition of pnfs_block_deviceaddr4 union to allow more concise representation of aggregated volume structures. Fixed typos to make both pnfs_block_layoutupdate and pnfs_block_layoutreturn structures contain extent lists instead of a single extent. Updated section 2.1.6 to remove references to CB_SIZECHANGED. Moved description of recovery from "Issues" section to "Block Layout Description" section. Removed section 3.2 "End-of-file handling issues". Merged old "block/volume layout security considerations" section from previous version of [NFSv4.1] with section 4. Moved paragraph on lingering writes to the section which describes layout return. Removed Issues section (3) as the remaining issues are all resolved. 7. Acknowledgments This draft draws extensively on the authors' familiarity with the mapping functionality and protocol in EMC's HighRoad system [HighRoad]. The protocol used by HighRoad is called FMP (File Mapping Protocol); it is an add-on protocol that runs in parallel with filesystem protocols such as NFSv3 to provide pNFS-like functionality for block/volume storage. While drawing on HighRoad FMP, the data structures and functional considerations in this draft differ in significant ways, based on lessons learned and the opportunity to take advantage of NFSv4 features such as COMPOUND operations. The design to support pNFS client participation in copy- on-write is based on text and ideas contributed by Craig Everhart (formerly with IBM). 8. References 8.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [NFSV4.1] Shepler, S., Eisler, M., and Noveck, D. ed., "NFSv4 Minor Version 1", draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion1-06.txt, Internet Draft, August 2006. Black Expires February 2007 [Page 17] Internet-Draft pNFS Block/Volume Layout August 2006 8.2. Informative References [HighRoad] EMC Corporation, "EMC Celerra HighRoad", EMC C819.1 white paper, available at: http://www.emc.com/pdf/products/celerra_file_server/HighRoad_wp.pdf link checked 29 August 2006. Author's Addresses David L. Black EMC Corporation 176 South Street Hopkinton, MA 01748 Phone: +1 (508) 293-7953 Email: black_david@emc.com Stephen Fridella EMC Corporation 32 Coslin Drive Southboro, MA 01772 Phone: +1 (508) 305-8512 Email: fridella_stephen@emc.com Intellectual Property Statement The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary Black Expires February 2007 [Page 18] Internet-Draft pNFS Block/Volume Layout August 2006 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf- ipr@ietf.org. Disclaimer of Validity This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. Acknowledgment Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. Black Expires February 2007 [Page 19]