On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 03:13:47PM +0000, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-03-20 at 10:49 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 01:46:20PM +0000, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2018-03-20 at 13:35 +0000, David Howells wrote:
> > > > J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > @@ -139,6 +139,9 @@ struct cred {
> > > > > struct key *thread_keyring; /* keyring private
> > > > > to
> > > > > this thread */
> > > > > struct key *request_key_auth; /* assumed
> > > > > request_key authority */
> > > > > #endif
> > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_FILE_LOCKING
> > > > > + void *lease_breaker; /* identify NFS
> > > > > client
> > > > > breaking a delegation */
> > > > > +#endif
> > > > > #ifdef CONFIG_SECURITY
> > > > > void *security; /* subjective
> > > > > LSM
> > > > > security */
> > > > > #endif
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, but ewww.
> > > >
> > > > Two reasons for that comment:
> > > >
> > > > (1) The cred struct may get retained long past where you expect
> > > > if
> > > > it gets
> > > > attached to another process or a file descriptor.
> > > >
> > > > (2) The ->lease_breaker pointer needs lifetime management in
> > > > cred.c. It will
> > > > potentially get copied around and may need cleaning up.
> > > >
> > > > Can you stick your breaker identity in a key struct as Jeff
> > > > suggested?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Bruce,
> > >
> > > Do you really need to do more than just identify that this is a
> > > knfsd
> > > thread vs not a knfsd thread? I'm assuming that a knfsd thread will
> > > usually be in a position to recall delegations before it even
> > > initiates
> > > an operation on the inode in question, won't it?
> >
> > I think it could. I'm reluctant:
> >
> > - Once we support write delegations, I think we end up having
> > to
> > do that before basically every operation on a inode.
> > - I'd like this to make it easy for someone to extend
> > delegation
> > support to userspace eventually too. I'm not sure exactly
> > how
> > we'd identify self-conflicts in that case (struct files?),
> > but
> > anyway I'd rather this wasn't too nfsd-specific.
>
> That's my point. A userspace application is going to have to do
> something like this anyway. It cannot install hooks in the kernel to
> perform elaborate tests, so it is going to have to rely on something
> like the struct file_lock 'fl_nspid' field in order to determine
> whether or not to apply a lease break.
>
> i.e.: the userspace rule should be to break the lease if and only if it
> is not owned by my process.
I was thinking of using struct file (whoops, not "struct files", sorry
for the typo above) to avoid assuming too much about any userspace
server's threading model.
> > That said, I'm still curious:
> >
> > > IOW: what if you were to modify the lease code to allow knfsd
> > > threads
> > > to return a "please ignore me, and proceed with the operation that
> > > triggered the lease break" reply, and then handle conflicts between
> > > NFS
> > > clients outside the lease callback code altogether?
> >
> > So if you're a random bit of code, how would you recommend testing
> > whether you're running in a knfsd thread?
>
> Right now, the knfsd threads are regular kernel threads, with each
> thread appearing to userspace to be a process in its own right.
> Is there any reason why we could not assign them a group pid that would
> allow the fl_nspid mechanism to work (i.e. set task->group_leader)?
Huh, OK, I hadn't thought about that.
--b.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
