On Thu, Jun 07, 2018 at 10:38:51AM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote: > On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 12:38 AM, Mark Fasheh <mfasheh@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > We have an inconsistency in how the kernel is exporting inode number / > > device pairs for user space. There's of course stat(2) and statx(2), > > but aside from those we simply dump inode->i_ino and super->s_dev. In > > some cases, the dumped values differ from what is returned via stat(2) > > or statx(2). Some filesystems might even show duplicate (but > > internally different!) pairs when the raw i_ino/s_dev is used. > > > > Some examples where we dump raw ino/dev: > > > > - /proc/<pid>/maps. I've written about how this confuses lsof(8): > > https://marc.info/?l=linux-btrfs&m=130074451403261&w=2 > > > > - Unsurprisingly, many VFS tracepoints dump ino and/or dev. See > > trace/events/lock.h or trace/events/writeback.h for examples. > > > > - eventpoll also dumps the raw ino/dev pair via ep_show_fdinfo() > > > > - Audit records the raw ino/dev and passes them around. We do seem to > > have paths printed from audit as well, but if it's printed with the > > wrong ino/dev pair I believe my point still stands. > > > > knfsd also looks at i_ino. I converted one or two of these places > to getattr callbacks recently, but there are still some more. > > Anyway, w.r.t. Overlayfs, I believe Miklos' work to make file_inode() > an overlay inode should resolve several of the issues listed above - > probably not all, but didn't check every tracepoint.. Ok, thanks for letting me know about knfsd and the overlayfs work. I haven't had a chance to check out the overlayfs work yet but I will shortly. > > This breaks software which expects these pairs to be unique, and can > > put the user in a situation where they might not be able to find an > > inode referenced from the kernel. What's even worse - depending on how > > ino is exported, they might even find the *wrong* inode. > > > > I also should point out that we're likely at this point because > > stat(2) has been using an unsigned long for ino. On a 32 bit system, > > it would have been impossible for the user to get the real inode > > number in the first place. So there probably wasn't much we could do. > > > > These days though, we have statx(2) which will do the right thing on > > all platforms so we no longer have that excuse. The user ought to be > > able to take an ino/dev pair and ultimately find the actual file on > > their system, partially with the help of statx(2). > > > > > > Some examples of how ino is manipulated by filesystems: > > > > - On 64 bit i_ino and kstat->ino tend to be filled in correctly (from > > what I can tell). stat->dev is not always consistent with super->s_dev. > > > > - On 32 bits, many filesystems employ a transformation to squeeze a 64 > > bit identifier into 32 bits. The exact methods are fs specific, > > what's important is that we're losing information, introducing the > > possibility of duplicate inode numbers. > > > > - On all platforms, Btrfs and Overlayfs can have duplicate inode > > numbers. Of course, device can be different across the fs as well > > with the kernel reporting s_dev and these filesystems returning > > a different device via stat() or statx(). > > > > > > Getting the inode number portion of this pair fixed would immediately > > solve the situation for all filesystems except Btrfs and > > Overlayfs - they report a different device from stat. > > > > Regarding the device portion of the pair, I'm honestly not sure > > whether Overlayfs cares, and my attempts to fix the s_dev situation > > for Btrfs have all come to the same dead ends that I've hit briefly > > looking into this inode number issue - the problems are intrinsically > > linked. > > > > So my questions are: > > > > 1) Do we care about this? On one hand, we've had this inconsistency > > for a long time, for various reasons. On the other hand, I can point > > to bugzilla's where these inconsistencies have become a problem. > > > > In the case that we don't care, any fs-internal solutions are > > likely to be extremely disruptive to the end user. > > > > > > 2) If we do care, how do we fix this? > > > > 2a) Do we use 64 bit i_ino on 32 bit systems? This has some obvious > > downsides from a memory usage standpoint. Also it doesn't fully > > address the issue - we still have a device field that Btrfs and > > Overlayfs override. > > > > We could combine this with an intermediate structure between the > > inode and super block so s_dev could be abstracted out. See my > > fs_view patches for an example of how this could be done: > > https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-fsdevel/msg125492.html > > > > 2b) Do we call ->getattr for this information? Plumbing a vfsmount to > > various regions of the kernel like audit, or some of the deeper > > tracepoints looks ugly and prone to life-timing issues (which > > vfsmount do we use?). On the upside, we could probably make it > > really light by only sending down the STATX_INO flag and letting > > the filesystem optimize accordingly. > > > > 2c) I don't think we can really use a dedicated callback without > > passing the vfsmount through since Overlayfs ->getattr might call > > the lower fs ->getattr. At that point we might as well use getattr. > > > > Didn't get the Overlayfs lower fs getattr argument. > Overlayfs doesn't use the vfsmount passed into getattr > and it could very well pass a dentry to lower fs getattr. My main point in 2c) is that, from my understanding, Overlayfs may need to call down to one of the filesystem ->getattr() calls. Since those take a vfsmount we don't gain anything by having a unique callback from this - the plumbing work would be the same. > As a matter of fact, out of 35 getattr implementations in the kernel: > (git grep "\s\.getattr\s" fs| awk '{print $4}'| sort -u|grep -v > "nfs.*_proc_getattr"|wc -l) > there is only one using the vfsmount - nfs_getattr() for MNT_NOATIME > check and most of them only ever use d_inode(path->dentry). > > This API seems quite odd. > Maybe it should be fixed so more in kernel call sites could call getattr > without a vfsmount. > Not sure what would be the best way to handle nfs_getattr(). Yeah I saw that nfs_getattr() is the only user of the vfsmount. I totally agree that this would be tons easier if we didn't have to pass the vfsmount (and like you said, there's only the ONE user). This is a bit hacky, but I wonder if we could blow the function signature back out to a dentry + vfsmount and make the vfsmount optional when getattr is called only for ino/dev. It's a bit ugly to have optional arguments like that but nfs would work with just a line or two change and the other fs would never even care. --Mark -- 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
