On Wed, 2018-03-14 at 17:03 +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 4:30 PM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2018-03-14 at 14:16 +0000, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2018-03-14 at 07:02 -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2018-03-14 at 16:42 +0800, Eddie Horng wrote:
> > > > > Hi Amir,
> > > > > Since the flock issue is clarified, I would like to start
> > > > > this new
> > > > > thread to discuss if we can find the cause of
> > > > > d_type=DT_UNKNOWN.
> > > > > First
> > > >
> > > > This sounds like NOTABUG to me. As readdir(3) states:
> > > >
> > > > Currently, only some filesystems (among them: Btrfs, ext2,
> > > > ext3,
> > > > and ext4) have full
> > > > support for returning the file type in
> > > > d_type. All applications must properly handle a return
> > > > of
> > > > DT_UNKNOWN.
> > > >
> > > > Applications that rely solely on d_type are effectively broken.
> > > > You
> > > > always need to be able to follow up with a stat or equivalent.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yes, but one of the main such applications is the "find" utility,
> > > which
> > > uses it to avoid calling stat() in order to discover the
> > > directories.
> > > For that reason, NFS does try to set the d_type flag when it is
> > > using
> > > readdirplus, and the server returns attributes for the entry in
> > > question. Otherwise, it is forced to default to DT_UNKNOWN.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, didn't mean to imply that we shouldn't try to fill these out
> > where
> > we can, just that there are situations where we might not be able
> > to do
> > so without taking a performance hit.
> >
> > > Note that in the cases where the readdir entry has a matching
> > > dentry,
> > > we probably could try to do better by doing a d_lookup() and then
> > > filling the d_type. Is that worth doing?
> > >
> >
> > I like that idea. Filling out what info we can from the local cache
> > is
> > almost always worthwhile.
> >
> > An inode's d_type can never change, so you can just vet the fileid
> > or fh
> > in the entry3 vs. the inode that comes back from d_lookup. If they
> > match
> > then you can reliably fill that out.
> >
>
> Ironically, this is where NFS over overlayfs may fail, because in
> overlayfs
> d_ino is not always consistent with st_ino. Since v4.15, d_ino is
> consistent
> with st_ino for the case of all layers on the same filesystem. I
> already posted
> a POC for fixing d_ino/st_ino for non-samefs, but it never got
> merged.
>
> What puzzles me w.r.t. this "nonbug" report is that I don't
> understand why
> NFS over overlayfs would behave differently vs. NFS over local fs.
> I am hoping it does not point to a different problem, so would love
> to
> get a more detailed analysis of what's going on between nfsd and
> overlayfs.
The behaviour being described is true of the regular NFS client. It has
nothing to do with overlayfs.
--
Trond Myklebust
Linux NFS client maintainer, PrimaryData
trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{���w��� jg��� �����ݢj����G���� ���j:+v���w�m������w�������h�����٥
