Re: [PATCH] fix writing to the filesystem after unmount

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Dne 08. 09. 23 v 12:20 Jan Kara napsal(a):
On Fri 08-09-23 11:29:40, Zdenek Kabelac wrote:
Dne 08. 09. 23 v 9:32 Jan Kara napsal(a):
On Thu 07-09-23 14:04:51, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
On Thu, 7 Sep 2023, Christian Brauner wrote:

I think we've got too deep down into "how to fix things" but I'm not 100%
We did.

sure what the "bug" actually is. In the initial posting Mikulas writes "the
kernel writes to the filesystem after unmount successfully returned" - is
that really such a big issue?
I think it's an issue if the administrator writes a script that unmounts a
filesystem and then copies the underyling block device somewhere. Or a
script that unmounts a filesystem and runs fsck afterwards. Or a script
that unmounts a filesystem and runs mkfs on the same block device.
Well, e.g. e2fsprogs use O_EXCL open so they will detect that the filesystem
hasn't been unmounted properly and complain. Which is exactly what should
IMHO happen.
I'd likely propose in this particular state of unmounting of a frozen
filesystem to just proceed - and drop the frozen state together with release
filesystem and never issue any ioctl from such filelsystem to the device
below - so it would not be a 100% valid unmount - but since the freeze
should be nearly equivalent of having a proper 'unmount' being done -  it
shoudn't be causing any harm either - and  all resources associated could 
be 'released.  IMHO it's correct to 'drop' frozen state for filesystem
that is not going to exist anymore  (assuming it's the last  such user)
This option was also discussed in the past and it has nasty consequences as
well. Cleanly shutting down a filesystem usually needs to write to the
underlying device so either you allow the filesystem to write to the device
on umount breaking assumptions of the user who froze the fs or you'd have
to implement a special handling for this case for every filesystem to avoid
the writes (and put up with the fact that the filesystem will appear as
uncleanly shutdown on the next mount). Not particularly nice either...


I'd say there are several options and we should aim towards the variant which is most usable by normal users.

Making hyper complex  unmount rule logic that basically no user-space tools around Gnome/KDE... are able to handle well and getting it to the position where only the core kernel developer have all the 'wisdom' to detect and decode system state and then 'know what's going on'  isn't the favourite goal here.

Freeze should be getting the filesystem into 'consistent' state  - filesystem should  be able to 'easily' recover and finish all the ongoing  'unfinished' process with the next mount without requiring full 'fsck' - otherwise it would be useless for i.e. snapshot.

So to me this looks like the win-win strategy where we basically do not loose any information  and we also do not leak kernel resources - since i..e in case of DM devices - the underlying DM device might have already changed  disk characteristics anyway.

If the developers then believe - that 'more variants' of complex behavior are necessary - then kernel could have some  sysfs parameter to configure some 'more advanced' logic  i.e.  keep  'fs mounted'   for those skilled admins who are able to go through the deepest corners  here  -  but other then that  plain 'umount' should really go with the meaning of   a)   manages to umount and release a device    b)  in other case reports to a user there is still something holding device.... 

Regards


Zdenek


--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel

[Index of Archives]     [DM Crypt]     [Fedora Desktop]     [ATA RAID]     [Fedora Marketing]     [Fedora Packaging]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite Discussion]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Docs]

  Powered by Linux