On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 6:58 PM, Trond Myklebust <trondmy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 18:45 +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 6:28 PM, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx> >> wrote: >> > On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 4:57 PM, Trond Myklebust <trondmy@primarydat >> > a.com> wrote: >> > >> > > What is the problem you are trying to solve? >> > >> > The problem is getting a persistent file handle for overlayfs >> > files. >> >> That is only part of the problem and the point I was trying to >> explore is that we don't need to solve it at all (see below). > > You don't, if you are willing to live with non-POSIX semantics. > Otherwise you do. > >> >> The other part of the problem is getting a persistent handle for >> overlayfs directories. >> >> Why this second problem is hard is too difficult to explain to >> non-overlayfs folks, but Miklos and I started playing around with an >> idea. >> >> > >> > One idea suggested by Viro is to create a dummy inode on the upper >> > layer whenever we look up a dentry in the overlay filesystem. Then >> > we >> >> So that idea is not relevant for directories (I think) >> >> > have an inode number reserved for the file if it needs to be copied >> > up. This solves the file handle problem, since we can generate a >> > path >> > from the file handle and from there get the original lower layer >> > file >> > (assumes the file handle has the parent handle encoded as >> > well). If >> >> Apparently, that is not the case with knfsd, but it doesn't matter >> for directory handles which can always be reconnceted. >> >> > the file is copied up, the file is no longer assiciated with the >> > lower >> > layer, we just need to use the upper inode, this works too. And >> > also >> > files created on the upper work fine. >> > >> > The only little problem is that we are creating lots of inodes on >> > disk >> > and memory that until now we haven't. Currently overlayfs only >> > modifies upper layer if there's a good reason to believe that there >> > is >> > really going to be modification (e.g. when file is opened for >> > write). >> > >> > The alternative is generate file handle from lower file (if on >> > lower) >> > and from upper file (if on upper). The issue is if the file is >> > copied up and goes from lower to upper. In that case we need to >> > find >> > the upper file from the handle generated from the lower >> > file. This >> >> So why do we really need to find the upper in that case? >> If we follow my idea, then NFS read request with lower handle >> may be served from lower inode and NFS write request with a >> lower handle will get ESTALE and will try to lookup by path >> (I suppose?). >> > > The client will never try to recover from an ESTALE error that is > returned on a file it has already opened. That would cause data > corruption if the user were to do something like 'rm foo; touch foo' on > the server; writes that were intended for the old file would suddenly > be written to the new one in violation of POSIX I/O rules. > > > IOW: In the case where WRITE returns ESTALE, that error will result in > the client returning EIO to the application on the next write() or > fsync() or close(). That error will persist; a retry will not clear > it. > The most important point to understand is this: If server opens a file for write it will trigger a copy up and the file handle returned will be persistent and final. The only problem is that when server opens a file for read *before* it opens the same file for write, the returned handle would be different, because first open for write creates a new file and the old file remains a zombie (as far as nfsd is concerned) only nfsd is able to to access the old file and only for read. -- 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
