On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 10:55:33AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, May 09, 2022 at 02:48:15PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > On Tue, May 03, 2022 at 02:23:23PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > > This is a simplification of the getvalues(2) prototype and moving it to the
> > > getxattr(2) interface, as suggested by Dave.
> > >
> > > The patch itself just adds the possibility to retrieve a single line of
> > > /proc/$$/mountinfo (which was the basic requirement from which the fsinfo
> > > patchset grew out of).
> > >
> > > But this should be able to serve Amir's per-sb iostats, as well as a host of
> > > other cases where some statistic needs to be retrieved from some object. Note:
> > > a filesystem object often represents other kinds of objects (such as processes
> > > in /proc) so this is not limited to fs attributes.
> > >
> > > This also opens up the interface to setting attributes via setxattr(2).
> > >
> > > After some pondering I made the namespace so:
> > >
> > > : - root
> > > bar - an attribute
> > > foo: - a folder (can contain attributes and/or folders)
> > >
> > > The contents of a folder is represented by a null separated list of names.
> > >
> > > Examples:
> > >
> > > $ getfattr -etext -n ":" .
> > > # file: .
> > > :="mnt:\000mntns:"
> > >
> > > $ getfattr -etext -n ":mnt:" .
> > > # file: .
> > > :mnt:="info"
> > >
> > > $ getfattr -etext -n ":mnt:info" .
> > > # file: .
> > > :mnt:info="21 1 254:0 / / rw,relatime - ext4 /dev/root rw\012"
> >
> > Hey Miklos,
> >
> > One comment about this. We really need to have this interface support
> > giving us mount options like "relatime" back in numeric form (I assume
> > this will be possible.). It is royally annoying having to maintain a
> > mapping table in userspace just to do:
> >
> > relatime -> MS_RELATIME/MOUNT_ATTR_RELATIME
> > ro -> MS_RDONLY/MOUNT_ATTR_RDONLY
>
> You're asking for a complete change of output information there.
> This has nothing to do with the mechanism for extracting key/value
> information from the kernel.
>
> i.e. we need to separate demands for "data I want" from "mechanism
> to extract data".
>
> > > $ getfattr -etext -n ":mntns:" .
> > > # file: .
> > > :mntns:="21:\00022:\00024:\00025:\00023:\00026:\00027:\00028:\00029:\00030:\00031:"
> > >
> > > $ getfattr -etext -n ":mntns:28:" .
> > > # file: .
> > > :mntns:28:="info"
> > >
> > > Comments?
> >
> > I'm not a fan of text-based APIs and I'm particularly not a fan of the
> > xattr APIs. But at this point I'm ready to compromise on a lot as long
> > as it gets us values out of the kernel in some way. :)
> >
> > I had to use xattrs extensively in various low-level userspace projects
> > and they continue to be a source of races and memory bugs.
> >
> > A few initial questions:
> >
> > * The xattr APIs often require the caller to do sm like (copying some go
> > code quickly as I have that lying around):
> >
> > for _, x := range split {
> > xattr := string(x)
> > // Call Getxattr() twice: First, to determine the size of the
> > // buffer we need to allocate to store the extended attributes,
> > // second, to actually store the extended attributes in the
> > // buffer. Also, check if the size of the extended attribute
> > // hasn't increased between the two calls.
> > pre, err = unix.Getxattr(path, xattr, nil)
> > if err != nil || pre < 0 {
> > return nil, err
> > }
> >
> > dest = make([]byte, pre)
> > post := 0
> > if pre > 0 {
> > post, err = unix.Getxattr(path, xattr, dest)
> > if err != nil || post < 0 {
> > return nil, err
> > }
> > }
> >
> > if post > pre {
> > return nil, fmt.Errorf("Extended attribute '%s' size increased from %d to %d during retrieval", xattr, pre, post)
> > }
> >
> > xattrs[xattr] = string(dest)
> > }
> >
> > This pattern of requesting the size first by passing empty arguments,
> > then allocating the buffer and then passing down that buffer to
> > retrieve that value is really annoying to use and error prone (I do
> > of course understand why it exists.).
>
> You're doing it wrong.
>
> When you have an attr extraction loop like this, you allocate a
> single 64kB buffer for the value, adn then call getattr() with the
> buffer and a length of 64kB. Then the call returns both the value
> length and the value in one syscall, and then the application can
> allocate+copy into an exact sized buffer if it needs to.
>
> Then you use the same 64kB buffer for the next getxattr() call.
>
> I first saw this pattern in code written in the mid 1990s for
> Irix, and for basic listxattr/getxattr operations to find and
> retrieve key/value pairs this is much more efficient than the above.
Right, but this example is in a garbage collected language where this
level of fine-grained memory management is rarely used or encouraged.
But the point is taken.
>
> The real problem is that the linux listxattr() syscall only returns
> names. It's a shit API design at best, especially the part where it
> cannot iterate over a list larger than a single buffer. If you've
> got millions of xattrs, listxattr is fucking useless. The man page
> is actively harmful - that's where everyone learns the double
> getxattr anit-pattern you've described above.
>
>
> With that in mind, go look at XFS_IOC_ATTRLIST_BY_HANDLE that I've
> mentioned in previous discussions this topic. Each attr entry
> returned is one of these:
>
> struct xfs_attrlist_ent { /* data from attr_list() */
> __u32 a_valuelen; /* number bytes in value of attr */
> char a_name[1]; /* attr name (NULL terminated) */
> };
>
> It really needs a namelen to make parsing of the output buffer
> simpler, but this is the model we should be following - listing
> xattrs is no different from listing directory entries. Indeed,
> a directory entries is basically just a name/value pair - the name
> of the dirent and the inode number it points to is the value.
>
> Further to that point, the control structure for
> XFS_IOC_ATTRLIST_BY_HANDLE has a cursor value that works the same
> way as readdir cookies do. Hence when iterating over xattrs that
> require multiple syscalls to retrieve, the cursor allows the next
> list syscall to start off listing exactly where the previous syscall
> finished.
>
> IOWs, what Linux really needs is a listxattr2() syscall that works
> the same way that getdents/XFS_IOC_ATTRLIST_BY_HANDLE work. With the
> list function returning value sizes and being able to iterate
> effectively, every problem that listxattr() causes goes away.
That's an interesting proposal...
>
> And while we are at it, we need to consider a xattr2() syscall to
> replace getxattr/setxattr. The model for that is
> XFS_IOC_ATTRMULTI_BY_HANDLE, which allows operations to be performed
> on mulitple xattrs in a single syscall. e.g. we can do a bulk get,
> set and remove operation across multiple xattrs - we can even mix
> and match get/set/remove operations on different xattrs in a single
> call.
Yeah, that would've come in handy in various codepaths I've seen.
>
> > * Would it be possible to support binary output with this interface?
>
> The xattr API already supports binary names and values. The only
> exception is you can't put NULLs in names because APIs use that as a
> name terminator. if listxattr2() returns a namelen in it's
> structure, then we could allow fully binary names, too (XFS already
> fully supports this internally!). In the current API, values are
> always determined by length, not null termiantions, so they are
> also already fully binary capable.
Yeah, I'm aware of that. I want to know whether we might be amenable to
support this for retrieving structs from mountinfo.
>
> > I really think users would love to have an interfact where they can
> > get a struct with binary info back.
>
> No. Not for kernel informational interfaces. We have ioctls and
That feels like semantics. statx is in all sensible readings of the
words a kernel informational interface.
> syscalls for defining structured binary interfaces that pass
> non-trivial objects. xattrs are no the place for this - they are
> key/value object stores like sysfs is supposed to be, so I really
> don't think we should support encoded binary data in xattrs under
> this special mount namespace...
I do agree on that point but as I mentioned in my reply to Miklos (hard
to keep track of all ends in this discussion...) if we are fine with
adding some way - in the form of a system call - to retrieve basic mount
information with some of the properties I listed in the other reply, I'm
content.
I'm really looking at this from the perspective of someone who uses
these interfaces regularly in userspace and a text-based interface for
very basic information such as detailed information about a mount is
cumbersome. I know people like to "counter" with "parsing strings is
easy" but it remains a giant pain for userspace; at least for basic
info.
If it's about really specialist deatiled information then sure; go text
based or any other way to retrieve that info.
>
> Solving the "retreive multiple values per syscall" problem is what
> the bulk get interface (XFS_IOC_ATTRMULTI_BY_HANDLE) is for.
>
> > Callers like systemd will have to parse text and will end up
> > converting everything from text into binary anyway; especially for
> > mount information. So giving them an option for this out of the box
> > would be quite good.
>
> That boat sailed years ago. You're making the same arguments about
> binary extraction interfaces being way more efficient than ascii
> based value-per-file interfaces like proc/sysfs that were made back
> in the early 2000s. That boat has long sailed - while the current
> method is somewhat inefficient, it certainly hasn't had all the
> problems that maintaining binary interfaces over decades has had....
>
> Much as it pains me to say it (because I came to Linux from an OS
> that exported huge amounts of custom binary structures from the
> kernel), having all the export interfaces dump human readable
> information has proved far more flexible and usable than interfaces
> that required binary parsers to dump information before it could be
> used on the command line or in scripting languages....
I'm really not trying to make far-reaching historical and future claims
about OS interface design. I'm simply asking for a way to retrieve basic
information about e.g. mounts in the form of a struct; statx for mounts.
I feel this is quickly turning into a discussion about how we should in
general design OS interfaces while that is really not at stake here.
Linux is a mix of so many different interfaces - for better or worse -
that any decision we take has no claim on codifying how we should do new
interfaces. That is indeed a ship that has sailed long ago.
>
> > * If we decide to go forward with this interface - and I think I
> > mentioned this in the lsfmm session - could we please at least add a
> > new system call? It really feels wrong to retrieve mount and other
> > information through the xattr interfaces. They aren't really xattrs.
>
> We are trying to expose structured key-value information. That's
> exactly what the xattr API was orginally created to cater for...
>
> > Imho, xattrs are a bit like a wonky version of streams already (One of
> > the reasons I find them quite unpleasant.). Making mount and other
> > information retrievable directly through the getxattr() interface will
> > turn them into a full-on streams implementation imho. I'd prefer not
> > to do that (Which is another reason I'd prefer at least a separate
> > system call.).
>
> And that's a total misunderstanding of what xattrs are.
>
> Alternate data streams are just {file,offset} based data streams
> accessed via ithe same read/write() mechanisms as the primary data
> stream.
That's why I said "wonky". But I'm not going to argue this point. I
think you by necessity have wider historical context on these things
that I lack. But I don't find it unreasonable to also see them as an
additional information channel.
Sure, they are a generic key=value store for anything _in principle_. In
practice however xattrs are very much perceived and used as information
storage on files, a metadata side-channel if you will.
All I'm claiming here is that it will confuse the living hell out of
users if the getxattr() api suddenly is used not to just set and get
information associated with inodes but to also provides filesystem or
mount information.
That's a totally a totally differnet type of information. Sure, it may
fit well in the key=value scheme because the xattr key=value _interface_
is generic but that's a very technical argument.
I'm looking at this from the experience of a user of the API for a
moment and in code they'd do in one place:
getxattr('/super/special/binary', "security.capability", ...);
and then in another place they do:
getxattr('/path/to/some/mount', "mntns:info", ...);
that is just flatout confusing.
>
> Xattrs provide an *atomic key-value object store API*, not an offset
> based data stream API. They are completely different beasts,
> intended for completely different purposes. ADS are redundant when you
> have directories and files, whilst an atomic key-value store is
> something completely different.
>
> You do realise we have an independent, scalable, ACID compliant
> key-value object store in every inode in an XFS filesystem, right?
So far this was a really mail with good background information but I'm
struggling to make sense of what that last sentence is trying to tell
me. :)
