lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Feb]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH v5 06/10] ovl: implement overlayfs' ->write_inode operation
From
在 2021/12/7 13:33, Amir Goldstein 写道:
> On Sun, Dec 5, 2021 at 4:07 PM Chengguang Xu <cgxu519@mykernel.net> wrote:
>> ---- 在 星期四, 2021-12-02 06:47:25 Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> 撰写 ----
>> > On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 6:24 PM Chengguang Xu <cgxu519@mykernel.net> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > ---- 在 星期三, 2021-12-01 21:46:10 Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> 撰写 ----
>> > > > On Wed 01-12-21 09:19:17, Amir Goldstein wrote:
>> > > > > On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 8:31 AM Chengguang Xu <cgxu519@mykernel.net> wrote:
>> > > > > > So the final solution to handle all the concerns looks like accurately
>> > > > > > mark overlay inode diry on modification and re-mark dirty only for
>> > > > > > mmaped file in ->write_inode().
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Hi Miklos, Jan
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Will you agree with new proposal above?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Maybe you can still pull off a simpler version by remarking dirty only
>> > > > > writably mmapped upper AND inode_is_open_for_write(upper)?
>> > > >
>> > > > Well, if inode is writeably mapped, it must be also open for write, doesn't
>> > > > it? The VMA of the mapping will hold file open. So remarking overlay inode
>> > > > dirty during writeback while inode_is_open_for_write(upper) looks like
>> > > > reasonably easy and presumably there won't be that many inodes open for
>> > > > writing for this to become big overhead?
>> >
>> > I think it should be ok and a good tradeoff of complexity vs. performance.
>>
>> IMO, mark dirtiness on write is relatively simple, so I think we can mark the
>> overlayfs inode dirty during real write behavior and only remark writable mmap
>> unconditionally in ->write_inode().
>>
> If by "on write" you mean on write/copy_file_range/splice_write/...
> then yes I agree
> since we have to cover all other mnt_want_write() cases anyway.
>
>> >
>> > > >
>> > > > > If I am not mistaken, if you always mark overlay inode dirty on ovl_flush()
>> > > > > of FMODE_WRITE file, there is nothing that can make upper inode dirty
>> > > > > after last close (if upper is not mmaped), so one more inode sync should
>> > > > > be enough. No?
>> > > >
>> > > > But we still need to catch other dirtying events like timestamp updates,
>> > > > truncate(2) etc. to mark overlay inode dirty. Not sure how reliably that
>> > > > can be done...
>> > > >
>> >
>> > Oh yeh, we have those as well :)
>> > All those cases should be covered by ovl_copyattr() that updates the
>> > ovl inode ctime/mtime, so always dirty in ovl_copyattr() should be good.
>>
>> Currently ovl_copyattr() does not cover all the cases, so I think we still need to carefully
>> check all the places of calling mnt_want_write().
>>
> Careful audit is always good, but if we do not have ovl_copyattr() in
> a call site
> that should mark inode dirty, then it sounds like a bug, because ovl inode ctime
> will not get updated. Do you know of any such cases?

Sorry for my late response, I've been very busy lately.
For your question, for example, there is a case of calling
ovl_want_write() in ovl_cache_get_impure() and caller does not call
ovl_copyattr()
so I think we should explicitly mark ovl inode dirty in that case. Is
that probably a bug?


Thanks,
Chengguang



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-02-05 17:10    [W:0.076 / U:0.404 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site