On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 1:08 AM, Josh England <jjengla@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Amir,
>
> After playing with it some, this patch seems to provide precisely the
> behavior I need for my use case. Do you think it makes sense to turn
> this behavior into a module parameter (eg: allow_revalidate)?
>
I don't know, because I don't know the reason that Miklos chose to error
on revalidate of remote lower fs.
But it would be strange to introduce a feature that changes one undefined
behavior (maybe ESTALE) with another undefined behavior.
It may be easier if you can argue for a use case which does have
defined behavior,
for example, lower fs has some directory subtrees that are not
modified via overlayfs
and only modified directry via lower fs.
I think this *may* result in defined behavior over lower remote fs,
but can't tell for sure.
Anyway, you will have to argue why such a setup is useful.
> -JE
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 6:01 AM, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 11:41 PM, Josh England <jjengla@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> So here's the use case: lowerdir is an NFS mounted root filesystem
>>> (shared by a bunch of nodes). upperdir is a tmpfs RAM disk to allow
>>> for writes to happen. This works great with the caveat being I cannot
>>> make 'live' changes to the root filesystem, which poses the problem.
>>> Any access to a changed file causes a 'Stale file handle' error.
>>>
>>> With some experimenting, I've discovered that remounting the overlay
>>> filesystem (mount -o remount / /) registers any changes that have
>>> been made to the lower NFS filesystem. In addition, dumping cache
>>> (via /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches) also makes the stale file handle errors
>>> go away and reads pass through to the lower dir and correctly show
>>> changes.
>>>
>>> I'd like to make this use case feasible by allowing changes to the NFS
>>> lowerdir to work more or less transparently. It seems like if the
>>> overlay did not do any caching at all, all reads would fall through to
>>> either the upperdir ram disk or the NFS lower, which is precisely what
>>> I want.
>>>
>>> So, let me pose this somewhat naive question: Would it be possible to
>>> simply disable any cacheing performed by the overlay to force all
>>> reads to go to either the tmpfs upper or the (VFS-cached) NFS lower?
>>> Would this be enough to accomplish my goal of being able to change the
>>> lowerdir of an active overlayfs?
>>>
>>
>> There is no need to disable caching. There is already a mechanism
>> in place in VFS to revalidate inode cache entries.
>> NFS implements d_revalidate() and overlayfs implements d_revalidate()
>> by calling into the lower fs d_revalidate().
>>
>> However overlayfs intentionally errors when lower entry has been modified.
>> (see: 7c03b5d ovl: allow distributed fs as lower layer)
>>
>> You can try this (untested) patch to revert this behavior, just to see if it
>> works for your use case, but it won't change this fact
>> from Documentation/filesystems/overlayfs.txt:
>> " Changes to the underlying filesystems while part of a mounted overlay
>> filesystem are not allowed. If the underlying filesystem is changed,
>> the behavior of the overlay is undefined, though it will not result in
>> a crash or deadlock."
>>
>> Specifically, renaming directories and files in lower that were already
>> copied up is going to have a weird outcome.
>>
>> Also, the situation with changing files in lower remote fs could be worse
>> than changing files on lower local fs, simply because right now, this
>> use case is not tested (i.e. it results in ESTALE).
>>
>> I believe that fixing this use case, if at all possible, would require quite
>> a bit of work, a lot of documentation (about expected behavior) and
>> even more testing.
>>
>> Amir.
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/overlayfs/super.c b/fs/overlayfs/super.c
>> index e8ef9d1..6806ef3 100644
>> --- a/fs/overlayfs/super.c
>> +++ b/fs/overlayfs/super.c
>> @@ -106,16 +106,11 @@ static int ovl_dentry_revalidate(struct dentry
>> *dentry, unsigned int flags)
>>
>> if (d->d_flags & DCACHE_OP_REVALIDATE) {
>> ret = d->d_op->d_revalidate(d, flags);
>> - if (ret < 0)
>> + if (ret =< 0)
>> return ret;
>> - if (!ret) {
>> - if (!(flags & LOOKUP_RCU))
>> - d_invalidate(d);
>> - return -ESTALE;
>> - }
>> }
>> }
>> - return 1;
>> + return ret;
>> }
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-unionfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
