On Sun, Apr 28, 2019 at 6:08 PM Trond Myklebust <trondmy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sun, 2019-04-28 at 18:00 -0400, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 28, 2019 at 11:06 AM Trond Myklebust > > <trondmy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Sun, 2019-04-28 at 09:45 -0400, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > > > On Sun, Apr 28, 2019 at 8:09 AM Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > wrote: > > > > > On Sat, 2019-04-27 at 16:16 -0400, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > > > > > [adding back samba/nfs and fsdevel] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cc'ing Pavel too -- he did a bunch of work in this area a few > > > > > years > > > > > ago. > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 6:22 PM Jeff Layton < > > > > > > jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, 2019-04-26 at 10:50 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 04:11:00PM +0200, Amir Goldstein > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 26, 2019, 4:00 PM J. Bruce Fields < > > > > > > > > > bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That said, we could also look at a vfs-level mount option > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > make the kernel enforce these for any opener. That could > > > > > > > also > > > > > > > be useful, > > > > > > > and shouldn't be too hard to implement. Maybe even make it > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > vfsmount- > > > > > > > level option (like -o ro is). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeh, I am humbly going to leave this struggle to someone > > > > > > else. > > > > > > Not important enough IMO and completely independent effort to > > > > > > the > > > > > > advisory atomic open&lock API. > > > > > > > > > > Having the kernel allow setting deny modes on any open call is > > > > > a > > > > > non- > > > > > starter, for the reasons Bruce outlined earlier. This _must_ be > > > > > restricted in some fashion or we'll be opening up a ginormous > > > > > DoS > > > > > mechanism. > > > > > > > > > > My proposal was to make this only be enforced by applications > > > > > that > > > > > explicitly opt-in by setting O_SH*/O_EX* flags. It wouldn't be > > > > > too > > > > > difficult to also allow them to be enforced on a per-fs basis > > > > > via > > > > > mount > > > > > option or something. Maybe we could expand the meaning of '-o > > > > > mand' > > > > > ? > > > > > > > > > > How would you propose that we restrict this? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Our communication channel is broken. > > > > I did not intend to propose any implicit locking. > > > > If samba and nfsd can opt-in with O_SHARE flags, I do not > > > > understand why a mount option is helpful for the cause of > > > > samba/nfsd interop. > > > > > > > > If someone else is interested in samba/local interop than > > > > yes, a mount option like suggested by Pavel could be a good > > > > option, > > > > but it is an orthogonal effort IMO. > > > > > > If an NFS client 'opts in' to set share deny, then that still makes > > > it > > > a non-optional lock for the other NFS clients, because all ordinary > > > open() calls will be gated by the server whether or not their > > > application specifies the O_SHARE flag. There is no flag in the NFS > > > protocol that could tell the server to ignore deny modes. > > > > > > IOW: it would suffice for 1 client to use O_SHARE|O_DENY* to opt > > > all > > > the other clients in. > > > > > > > Sorry for being thick, I don't understand if we are in agreement or > > not. > > > > My understanding is that the network file server implementations > > (i.e. samba, knfds, Ganesha) will always use share/deny modes. > > So for example nfs v3 opens will always use O_DENY_NONE > > in order to have correct interop with samba and nfs v4. > > > > If I am misunderstanding something, please enlighten me. > > If there is a reason why mount option is needed for the sole purpose > > of interop between network filesystem servers, please enlighten me. > > > > > > Same difference. As long as nfsd and/or Ganesha are translating > OPEN4_SHARE_ACCESS_READ and OPEN4_SHARE_ACCESS_WRITE into share access > locks, then those will conflict with any deny locks set by whatever > application that uses them. > > IOW: any open(O_RDONLY) and open(O_RDWR) will conflict with an > O_DENY_READ that is set on the server, and any open(O_WRONLY) and > open(O_RDWR) will conflict with an O_DENY_WRITE that is set on the > server. There is no opt-out for NFS clients on this issue, because > stateful NFSv4 opens MUST set one or more of OPEN4_SHARE_ACCESS_READ > and OPEN4_SHARE_ACCESS_WRITE. > Urgh! I *think* I understand the confusion. I believe Jeff was talking about implementing a mount option similar to -o mand for local fs on the server. With that mount option, *any* open() by any app of file from that mount will use O_DENY_NONE to interop correctly with network servers that explicitly opt-in for interop on share modes. I agree its a nice feature that is easy to implement - not important for first version IMO. I *think* you are talking on nfs client mount option for opt-in/out of share modes? there was no such intention. Thanks, Amir.
