* [Virtio-fs] [PATCH V3] virtiofsd: Support remote posix locks
@ 2019-06-10 19:22 Vivek Goyal
2019-06-11 9:34 ` Dr. David Alan Gilbert
2019-06-11 19:08 ` Liu Bo
0 siblings, 2 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Vivek Goyal @ 2019-06-10 19:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: virtio-fs-list
Doing posix locks with-in guest kernel are not sufficient if a file/dir
is being shared by multiple guests. So we need the notion of daemon doing
the locks which are visible to rest of the guests.
Given posix locks are per process, one can not call posix lock API on host,
otherwise bunch of basic posix locks properties are broken. For example,
If two processes (A and B) in guest open the file and take locks on different
sections of file, if one of the processes closes the fd, it will close
fd on virtiofsd and all posix locks on file will go away. This means if
process A closes the fd, then locks of process B will go away too.
Similar other problems exist too.
This patch set tries to emulate posix locks while using open file
description locks provided on Linux.
Daemon provides two options (-o posix_lock, -o no_posix_lock) to enable
or disable posix locking in daemon. By default it is enabled.
There are few issues though.
- GETLK() returns pid of process holding lock. As we are emulating locks
using OFD, and these locks are not per process and don't return pid
of process, so GETLK() in guest does not reuturn process pid.
- As of now only F_SETLK is supported and not F_SETLKW. We can't block
the thread in virtiofsd for arbitrary long duration as there is only
one thread serving the queue. That means unlock request will not make
it to daemon and F_SETLKW will block infinitely and bring virtio-fs
to a halt. This is a solvable problem though and will require significant
changes in virtiofsd and kernel. Left as a TODO item for now.
Signed-off-by: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
---
contrib/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c | 186 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 185 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
Index: qemu/contrib/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c
===================================================================
--- qemu.orig/contrib/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c 2019-06-07 14:58:41.751371163 -0400
+++ qemu/contrib/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c 2019-06-10 15:14:22.196875881 -0400
@@ -58,6 +58,12 @@
#include <gmodule.h>
#include "seccomp.h"
+/* Keep track of inode posix locks for each owner. */
+struct lo_inode_plock {
+ uint64_t lock_owner;
+ int fd; /* fd for OFD locks */
+};
+
struct lo_map_elem {
union {
struct lo_inode *inode;
@@ -86,6 +92,8 @@ struct lo_inode {
struct lo_key key;
uint64_t refcount; /* protected by lo->mutex */
fuse_ino_t fuse_ino;
+ pthread_mutex_t plock_mutex;
+ GHashTable *posix_locks; /* protected by lo_inode->plock_mutex */
};
struct lo_cred {
@@ -105,6 +113,7 @@ struct lo_data {
int norace;
int writeback;
int flock;
+ int posix_lock;
int xattr;
const char *source;
double timeout;
@@ -133,6 +142,10 @@ static const struct fuse_opt lo_opts[] =
offsetof(struct lo_data, flock), 1 },
{ "no_flock",
offsetof(struct lo_data, flock), 0 },
+ { "posix_lock",
+ offsetof(struct lo_data, posix_lock), 1 },
+ { "no_posix_lock",
+ offsetof(struct lo_data, posix_lock), 0 },
{ "xattr",
offsetof(struct lo_data, xattr), 1 },
{ "no_xattr",
@@ -362,13 +375,24 @@ static void lo_init(void *userdata,
fprintf(stderr, "lo_init: activating flock locks\n");
conn->want |= FUSE_CAP_FLOCK_LOCKS;
}
+
+ if (conn->capable & FUSE_CAP_POSIX_LOCKS) {
+ if (lo->posix_lock) {
+ if (lo->debug)
+ fprintf(stderr, "lo_init: activating posix locks\n");
+ conn->want |= FUSE_CAP_POSIX_LOCKS;
+ } else {
+ if (lo->debug)
+ fprintf(stderr, "lo_init: disabling posix locks\n");
+ conn->want &= ~FUSE_CAP_POSIX_LOCKS;
+ }
+ }
if ((lo->cache == CACHE_NONE && !lo->readdirplus_set) ||
lo->readdirplus_clear) {
if (lo->debug)
fprintf(stderr, "lo_init: disabling readdirplus\n");
conn->want &= ~FUSE_CAP_READDIRPLUS;
}
-
}
static void lo_getattr(fuse_req_t req, fuse_ino_t ino,
@@ -673,6 +697,8 @@ static int lo_do_lookup(fuse_req_t req,
newfd = -1;
inode->key.ino = e->attr.st_ino;
inode->key.dev = e->attr.st_dev;
+ pthread_mutex_init(&inode->plock_mutex, NULL);
+ inode->posix_locks = g_hash_table_new(g_direct_hash, g_direct_equal);
pthread_mutex_lock(&lo->mutex);
inode->fuse_ino = lo_add_inode_mapping(req, inode);
@@ -1038,6 +1064,11 @@ static void unref_inode(struct lo_data *
if (!inode->refcount) {
lo_map_remove(&lo->ino_map, inode->fuse_ino);
g_hash_table_remove(lo->inodes, &inode->key);
+ if (g_hash_table_size(inode->posix_locks)) {
+ warn("Hash table is not empty\n");
+ }
+ g_hash_table_destroy(inode->posix_locks);
+ pthread_mutex_destroy(&inode->plock_mutex);
pthread_mutex_unlock(&lo->mutex);
close(inode->fd);
free(inode);
@@ -1379,6 +1410,131 @@ out:
fuse_reply_create(req, &e, fi);
}
+/* Should be called with inode->plock_mutex held */
+static struct lo_inode_plock *lookup_create_plock_ctx(struct lo_data *lo,
+ struct lo_inode *inode, uint64_t lock_owner,
+ pid_t pid, int *err)
+{
+ struct lo_inode_plock *plock;
+ char procname[64];
+ int fd;
+
+ plock = g_hash_table_lookup(inode->posix_locks,
+ GUINT_TO_POINTER(lock_owner));
+
+ if (plock)
+ return plock;
+
+ plock = malloc(sizeof(struct lo_inode_plock));
+ if (!plock) {
+ *err = ENOMEM;
+ return NULL;
+ }
+
+ /* Open another instance of file which can be used for ofd locks. */
+ sprintf(procname, "%i", inode->fd);
+
+ /* TODO: What if file is not writable? */
+ fd = openat(lo->proc_self_fd, procname, O_RDWR);
+ if (fd == -1) {
+ *err = -errno;
+ free(plock);
+ return NULL;
+ }
+
+ plock->lock_owner = lock_owner;
+ plock->fd = fd;
+ g_hash_table_insert(inode->posix_locks,
+ GUINT_TO_POINTER(plock->lock_owner), plock);
+ return plock;
+}
+
+static void lo_getlk(fuse_req_t req, fuse_ino_t ino,
+ struct fuse_file_info *fi, struct flock *lock)
+{
+ struct lo_data *lo = lo_data(req);
+ struct lo_inode *inode;
+ struct lo_inode_plock *plock;
+ int ret, saverr = 0;
+
+ if (lo_debug(req))
+ fprintf(stderr, "lo_getlk(ino=%" PRIu64 ", flags=%d)"
+ " owner=0x%lx, l_type=%d l_start=0x%lx"
+ " l_len=0x%lx\n", ino, fi->flags, fi->lock_owner,
+ lock->l_type, lock->l_start, lock->l_len);
+
+ inode = lo_inode(req, ino);
+ if (!inode) {
+ fuse_reply_err(req, EBADF);
+ return;
+ }
+
+ pthread_mutex_lock(&inode->plock_mutex);
+ plock = lookup_create_plock_ctx(lo, inode, fi->lock_owner, lock->l_pid,
+ &ret);
+ if (!plock) {
+ pthread_mutex_unlock(&inode->plock_mutex);
+ fuse_reply_err(req, ret);
+ return;
+ }
+
+ ret = fcntl(plock->fd, F_OFD_GETLK, lock);
+ if (ret == -1)
+ saverr = errno;
+ pthread_mutex_unlock(&inode->plock_mutex);
+
+ if (saverr)
+ fuse_reply_err(req, saverr);
+ else
+ fuse_reply_lock(req, lock);
+}
+
+static void lo_setlk(fuse_req_t req, fuse_ino_t ino,
+ struct fuse_file_info *fi, struct flock *lock, int sleep)
+{
+ struct lo_data *lo = lo_data(req);
+ struct lo_inode *inode;
+ struct lo_inode_plock *plock;
+ int ret, saverr = 0;
+
+ if (lo_debug(req))
+ fprintf(stderr, "lo_setlk(ino=%" PRIu64 ", flags=%d)"
+ " cmd=%d pid=%d owner=0x%lx sleep=%d l_whence=%d"
+ " l_start=0x%lx l_len=0x%lx\n", ino, fi->flags,
+ lock->l_type, lock->l_pid, fi->lock_owner, sleep,
+ lock->l_whence, lock->l_start, lock->l_len);
+
+ if (sleep) {
+ fuse_reply_err(req, EOPNOTSUPP);
+ return;
+ }
+
+ inode = lo_inode(req, ino);
+ if (!inode) {
+ fuse_reply_err(req, EBADF);
+ return;
+ }
+
+ pthread_mutex_lock(&inode->plock_mutex);
+ plock = lookup_create_plock_ctx(lo, inode, fi->lock_owner, lock->l_pid,
+ &ret);
+
+ if (!plock) {
+ pthread_mutex_unlock(&inode->plock_mutex);
+ fuse_reply_err(req, ret);
+ return;
+ }
+
+ /* TODO: Is it alright to modify flock? */
+ lock->l_pid = 0;
+ ret = fcntl(plock->fd, F_OFD_SETLK, lock);
+ if (ret == -1) {
+ saverr = errno;
+ }
+ pthread_mutex_unlock(&inode->plock_mutex);
+ fuse_reply_err(req, saverr);
+}
+
static void lo_fsyncdir(fuse_req_t req, fuse_ino_t ino, int datasync,
struct fuse_file_info *fi)
{
@@ -1476,6 +1632,31 @@ static void lo_flush(fuse_req_t req, fus
{
int res;
(void) ino;
+ struct lo_inode *inode;
+ struct lo_inode_plock *plock;
+
+ inode = lo_inode(req, ino);
+ if (!inode) {
+ fuse_reply_err(req, EBADF);
+ return;
+ }
+
+ /* An fd is going away. Cleanup associated posix locks */
+ pthread_mutex_lock(&inode->plock_mutex);
+ plock = g_hash_table_lookup(inode->posix_locks,
+ GUINT_TO_POINTER(fi->lock_owner));
+ if (plock) {
+ g_hash_table_remove(inode->posix_locks,
+ GUINT_TO_POINTER(fi->lock_owner));
+ /*
+ * We had used open() for locks and had only one fd. So
+ * closing this fd should release all OFD locks.
+ */
+ close(plock->fd);
+ free(plock);
+ }
+ pthread_mutex_unlock(&inode->plock_mutex);
+
res = close(dup(lo_fi_fd(req, fi)));
fuse_reply_err(req, res == -1 ? errno : 0);
}
@@ -1974,6 +2155,8 @@ static struct fuse_lowlevel_ops lo_oper
.releasedir = lo_releasedir,
.fsyncdir = lo_fsyncdir,
.create = lo_create,
+ .getlk = lo_getlk,
+ .setlk = lo_setlk,
.open = lo_open,
.release = lo_release,
.flush = lo_flush,
@@ -2217,6 +2400,7 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
struct fuse_cmdline_opts opts;
struct lo_data lo = { .debug = 0,
.writeback = 0,
+ .posix_lock = 1,
.proc_self_fd = -1,
};
struct lo_map_elem *root_elem;
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [Virtio-fs] [PATCH V3] virtiofsd: Support remote posix locks
2019-06-10 19:22 [Virtio-fs] [PATCH V3] virtiofsd: Support remote posix locks Vivek Goyal
@ 2019-06-11 9:34 ` Dr. David Alan Gilbert
2019-06-11 19:08 ` Liu Bo
1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Dr. David Alan Gilbert @ 2019-06-11 9:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Vivek Goyal; +Cc: virtio-fs-list
* Vivek Goyal (vgoyal@redhat.com) wrote:
> Doing posix locks with-in guest kernel are not sufficient if a file/dir
> is being shared by multiple guests. So we need the notion of daemon doing
> the locks which are visible to rest of the guests.
>
> Given posix locks are per process, one can not call posix lock API on host,
> otherwise bunch of basic posix locks properties are broken. For example,
> If two processes (A and B) in guest open the file and take locks on different
> sections of file, if one of the processes closes the fd, it will close
> fd on virtiofsd and all posix locks on file will go away. This means if
> process A closes the fd, then locks of process B will go away too.
>
> Similar other problems exist too.
>
> This patch set tries to emulate posix locks while using open file
> description locks provided on Linux.
>
> Daemon provides two options (-o posix_lock, -o no_posix_lock) to enable
> or disable posix locking in daemon. By default it is enabled.
>
> There are few issues though.
>
> - GETLK() returns pid of process holding lock. As we are emulating locks
> using OFD, and these locks are not per process and don't return pid
> of process, so GETLK() in guest does not reuturn process pid.
>
> - As of now only F_SETLK is supported and not F_SETLKW. We can't block
> the thread in virtiofsd for arbitrary long duration as there is only
> one thread serving the queue. That means unlock request will not make
> it to daemon and F_SETLKW will block infinitely and bring virtio-fs
> to a halt. This is a solvable problem though and will require significant
> changes in virtiofsd and kernel. Left as a TODO item for now.
>
> Signed-off-by: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
Looks OK to me, comments by anyone else who knows more aobut locking
would be good.
Added to my tree.
Reviewed-by: Dr. David Alan Gilbert <dgilbert@redhat.com>
> ---
> contrib/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c | 186 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 185 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> Index: qemu/contrib/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c
> ===================================================================
> --- qemu.orig/contrib/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c 2019-06-07 14:58:41.751371163 -0400
> +++ qemu/contrib/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c 2019-06-10 15:14:22.196875881 -0400
> @@ -58,6 +58,12 @@
> #include <gmodule.h>
> #include "seccomp.h"
>
> +/* Keep track of inode posix locks for each owner. */
> +struct lo_inode_plock {
> + uint64_t lock_owner;
> + int fd; /* fd for OFD locks */
> +};
> +
> struct lo_map_elem {
> union {
> struct lo_inode *inode;
> @@ -86,6 +92,8 @@ struct lo_inode {
> struct lo_key key;
> uint64_t refcount; /* protected by lo->mutex */
> fuse_ino_t fuse_ino;
> + pthread_mutex_t plock_mutex;
> + GHashTable *posix_locks; /* protected by lo_inode->plock_mutex */
> };
>
> struct lo_cred {
> @@ -105,6 +113,7 @@ struct lo_data {
> int norace;
> int writeback;
> int flock;
> + int posix_lock;
> int xattr;
> const char *source;
> double timeout;
> @@ -133,6 +142,10 @@ static const struct fuse_opt lo_opts[] =
> offsetof(struct lo_data, flock), 1 },
> { "no_flock",
> offsetof(struct lo_data, flock), 0 },
> + { "posix_lock",
> + offsetof(struct lo_data, posix_lock), 1 },
> + { "no_posix_lock",
> + offsetof(struct lo_data, posix_lock), 0 },
> { "xattr",
> offsetof(struct lo_data, xattr), 1 },
> { "no_xattr",
> @@ -362,13 +375,24 @@ static void lo_init(void *userdata,
> fprintf(stderr, "lo_init: activating flock locks\n");
> conn->want |= FUSE_CAP_FLOCK_LOCKS;
> }
> +
> + if (conn->capable & FUSE_CAP_POSIX_LOCKS) {
> + if (lo->posix_lock) {
> + if (lo->debug)
> + fprintf(stderr, "lo_init: activating posix locks\n");
> + conn->want |= FUSE_CAP_POSIX_LOCKS;
> + } else {
> + if (lo->debug)
> + fprintf(stderr, "lo_init: disabling posix locks\n");
> + conn->want &= ~FUSE_CAP_POSIX_LOCKS;
> + }
> + }
> if ((lo->cache == CACHE_NONE && !lo->readdirplus_set) ||
> lo->readdirplus_clear) {
> if (lo->debug)
> fprintf(stderr, "lo_init: disabling readdirplus\n");
> conn->want &= ~FUSE_CAP_READDIRPLUS;
> }
> -
> }
>
> static void lo_getattr(fuse_req_t req, fuse_ino_t ino,
> @@ -673,6 +697,8 @@ static int lo_do_lookup(fuse_req_t req,
> newfd = -1;
> inode->key.ino = e->attr.st_ino;
> inode->key.dev = e->attr.st_dev;
> + pthread_mutex_init(&inode->plock_mutex, NULL);
> + inode->posix_locks = g_hash_table_new(g_direct_hash, g_direct_equal);
>
> pthread_mutex_lock(&lo->mutex);
> inode->fuse_ino = lo_add_inode_mapping(req, inode);
> @@ -1038,6 +1064,11 @@ static void unref_inode(struct lo_data *
> if (!inode->refcount) {
> lo_map_remove(&lo->ino_map, inode->fuse_ino);
> g_hash_table_remove(lo->inodes, &inode->key);
> + if (g_hash_table_size(inode->posix_locks)) {
> + warn("Hash table is not empty\n");
> + }
> + g_hash_table_destroy(inode->posix_locks);
> + pthread_mutex_destroy(&inode->plock_mutex);
> pthread_mutex_unlock(&lo->mutex);
> close(inode->fd);
> free(inode);
> @@ -1379,6 +1410,131 @@ out:
> fuse_reply_create(req, &e, fi);
> }
>
> +/* Should be called with inode->plock_mutex held */
> +static struct lo_inode_plock *lookup_create_plock_ctx(struct lo_data *lo,
> + struct lo_inode *inode, uint64_t lock_owner,
> + pid_t pid, int *err)
> +{
> + struct lo_inode_plock *plock;
> + char procname[64];
> + int fd;
> +
> + plock = g_hash_table_lookup(inode->posix_locks,
> + GUINT_TO_POINTER(lock_owner));
> +
> + if (plock)
> + return plock;
> +
> + plock = malloc(sizeof(struct lo_inode_plock));
> + if (!plock) {
> + *err = ENOMEM;
> + return NULL;
> + }
> +
> + /* Open another instance of file which can be used for ofd locks. */
> + sprintf(procname, "%i", inode->fd);
> +
> + /* TODO: What if file is not writable? */
> + fd = openat(lo->proc_self_fd, procname, O_RDWR);
> + if (fd == -1) {
> + *err = -errno;
> + free(plock);
> + return NULL;
> + }
> +
> + plock->lock_owner = lock_owner;
> + plock->fd = fd;
> + g_hash_table_insert(inode->posix_locks,
> + GUINT_TO_POINTER(plock->lock_owner), plock);
> + return plock;
> +}
> +
> +static void lo_getlk(fuse_req_t req, fuse_ino_t ino,
> + struct fuse_file_info *fi, struct flock *lock)
> +{
> + struct lo_data *lo = lo_data(req);
> + struct lo_inode *inode;
> + struct lo_inode_plock *plock;
> + int ret, saverr = 0;
> +
> + if (lo_debug(req))
> + fprintf(stderr, "lo_getlk(ino=%" PRIu64 ", flags=%d)"
> + " owner=0x%lx, l_type=%d l_start=0x%lx"
> + " l_len=0x%lx\n", ino, fi->flags, fi->lock_owner,
> + lock->l_type, lock->l_start, lock->l_len);
> +
> + inode = lo_inode(req, ino);
> + if (!inode) {
> + fuse_reply_err(req, EBADF);
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + pthread_mutex_lock(&inode->plock_mutex);
> + plock = lookup_create_plock_ctx(lo, inode, fi->lock_owner, lock->l_pid,
> + &ret);
> + if (!plock) {
> + pthread_mutex_unlock(&inode->plock_mutex);
> + fuse_reply_err(req, ret);
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + ret = fcntl(plock->fd, F_OFD_GETLK, lock);
> + if (ret == -1)
> + saverr = errno;
> + pthread_mutex_unlock(&inode->plock_mutex);
> +
> + if (saverr)
> + fuse_reply_err(req, saverr);
> + else
> + fuse_reply_lock(req, lock);
> +}
> +
> +static void lo_setlk(fuse_req_t req, fuse_ino_t ino,
> + struct fuse_file_info *fi, struct flock *lock, int sleep)
> +{
> + struct lo_data *lo = lo_data(req);
> + struct lo_inode *inode;
> + struct lo_inode_plock *plock;
> + int ret, saverr = 0;
> +
> + if (lo_debug(req))
> + fprintf(stderr, "lo_setlk(ino=%" PRIu64 ", flags=%d)"
> + " cmd=%d pid=%d owner=0x%lx sleep=%d l_whence=%d"
> + " l_start=0x%lx l_len=0x%lx\n", ino, fi->flags,
> + lock->l_type, lock->l_pid, fi->lock_owner, sleep,
> + lock->l_whence, lock->l_start, lock->l_len);
> +
> + if (sleep) {
> + fuse_reply_err(req, EOPNOTSUPP);
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + inode = lo_inode(req, ino);
> + if (!inode) {
> + fuse_reply_err(req, EBADF);
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + pthread_mutex_lock(&inode->plock_mutex);
> + plock = lookup_create_plock_ctx(lo, inode, fi->lock_owner, lock->l_pid,
> + &ret);
> +
> + if (!plock) {
> + pthread_mutex_unlock(&inode->plock_mutex);
> + fuse_reply_err(req, ret);
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + /* TODO: Is it alright to modify flock? */
> + lock->l_pid = 0;
> + ret = fcntl(plock->fd, F_OFD_SETLK, lock);
> + if (ret == -1) {
> + saverr = errno;
> + }
> + pthread_mutex_unlock(&inode->plock_mutex);
> + fuse_reply_err(req, saverr);
> +}
> +
> static void lo_fsyncdir(fuse_req_t req, fuse_ino_t ino, int datasync,
> struct fuse_file_info *fi)
> {
> @@ -1476,6 +1632,31 @@ static void lo_flush(fuse_req_t req, fus
> {
> int res;
> (void) ino;
> + struct lo_inode *inode;
> + struct lo_inode_plock *plock;
> +
> + inode = lo_inode(req, ino);
> + if (!inode) {
> + fuse_reply_err(req, EBADF);
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + /* An fd is going away. Cleanup associated posix locks */
> + pthread_mutex_lock(&inode->plock_mutex);
> + plock = g_hash_table_lookup(inode->posix_locks,
> + GUINT_TO_POINTER(fi->lock_owner));
> + if (plock) {
> + g_hash_table_remove(inode->posix_locks,
> + GUINT_TO_POINTER(fi->lock_owner));
> + /*
> + * We had used open() for locks and had only one fd. So
> + * closing this fd should release all OFD locks.
> + */
> + close(plock->fd);
> + free(plock);
> + }
> + pthread_mutex_unlock(&inode->plock_mutex);
> +
> res = close(dup(lo_fi_fd(req, fi)));
> fuse_reply_err(req, res == -1 ? errno : 0);
> }
> @@ -1974,6 +2155,8 @@ static struct fuse_lowlevel_ops lo_oper
> .releasedir = lo_releasedir,
> .fsyncdir = lo_fsyncdir,
> .create = lo_create,
> + .getlk = lo_getlk,
> + .setlk = lo_setlk,
> .open = lo_open,
> .release = lo_release,
> .flush = lo_flush,
> @@ -2217,6 +2400,7 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
> struct fuse_cmdline_opts opts;
> struct lo_data lo = { .debug = 0,
> .writeback = 0,
> + .posix_lock = 1,
> .proc_self_fd = -1,
> };
> struct lo_map_elem *root_elem;
>
> _______________________________________________
> Virtio-fs mailing list
> Virtio-fs@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/virtio-fs
--
Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilbert@redhat.com / Manchester, UK
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [Virtio-fs] [PATCH V3] virtiofsd: Support remote posix locks
2019-06-10 19:22 [Virtio-fs] [PATCH V3] virtiofsd: Support remote posix locks Vivek Goyal
2019-06-11 9:34 ` Dr. David Alan Gilbert
@ 2019-06-11 19:08 ` Liu Bo
2019-06-11 19:30 ` Vivek Goyal
1 sibling, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Liu Bo @ 2019-06-11 19:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Vivek Goyal; +Cc: virtio-fs-list
On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 03:22:06PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> Doing posix locks with-in guest kernel are not sufficient if a file/dir
> is being shared by multiple guests. So we need the notion of daemon doing
> the locks which are visible to rest of the guests.
>
> Given posix locks are per process, one can not call posix lock API on host,
> otherwise bunch of basic posix locks properties are broken. For example,
> If two processes (A and B) in guest open the file and take locks on different
> sections of file, if one of the processes closes the fd, it will close
> fd on virtiofsd and all posix locks on file will go away. This means if
> process A closes the fd, then locks of process B will go away too.
>
> Similar other problems exist too.
>
> This patch set tries to emulate posix locks while using open file
> description locks provided on Linux.
>
> Daemon provides two options (-o posix_lock, -o no_posix_lock) to enable
> or disable posix locking in daemon. By default it is enabled.
>
> There are few issues though.
>
> - GETLK() returns pid of process holding lock. As we are emulating locks
> using OFD, and these locks are not per process and don't return pid
> of process, so GETLK() in guest does not reuturn process pid.
>
> - As of now only F_SETLK is supported and not F_SETLKW. We can't block
> the thread in virtiofsd for arbitrary long duration as there is only
> one thread serving the queue. That means unlock request will not make
> it to daemon and F_SETLKW will block infinitely and bring virtio-fs
> to a halt. This is a solvable problem though and will require significant
> changes in virtiofsd and kernel. Left as a TODO item for now.
>
> Signed-off-by: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
> ---
> contrib/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c | 186 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 185 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> Index: qemu/contrib/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c
> ===================================================================
> --- qemu.orig/contrib/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c 2019-06-07 14:58:41.751371163 -0400
> +++ qemu/contrib/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c 2019-06-10 15:14:22.196875881 -0400
> @@ -58,6 +58,12 @@
> #include <gmodule.h>
> #include "seccomp.h"
>
> +/* Keep track of inode posix locks for each owner. */
> +struct lo_inode_plock {
> + uint64_t lock_owner;
> + int fd; /* fd for OFD locks */
> +};
> +
> struct lo_map_elem {
> union {
> struct lo_inode *inode;
> @@ -86,6 +92,8 @@ struct lo_inode {
> struct lo_key key;
> uint64_t refcount; /* protected by lo->mutex */
> fuse_ino_t fuse_ino;
> + pthread_mutex_t plock_mutex;
> + GHashTable *posix_locks; /* protected by lo_inode->plock_mutex */
> };
>
> struct lo_cred {
> @@ -105,6 +113,7 @@ struct lo_data {
> int norace;
> int writeback;
> int flock;
> + int posix_lock;
> int xattr;
> const char *source;
> double timeout;
> @@ -133,6 +142,10 @@ static const struct fuse_opt lo_opts[] =
> offsetof(struct lo_data, flock), 1 },
> { "no_flock",
> offsetof(struct lo_data, flock), 0 },
> + { "posix_lock",
> + offsetof(struct lo_data, posix_lock), 1 },
> + { "no_posix_lock",
> + offsetof(struct lo_data, posix_lock), 0 },
> { "xattr",
> offsetof(struct lo_data, xattr), 1 },
> { "no_xattr",
> @@ -362,13 +375,24 @@ static void lo_init(void *userdata,
> fprintf(stderr, "lo_init: activating flock locks\n");
> conn->want |= FUSE_CAP_FLOCK_LOCKS;
> }
> +
> + if (conn->capable & FUSE_CAP_POSIX_LOCKS) {
> + if (lo->posix_lock) {
> + if (lo->debug)
> + fprintf(stderr, "lo_init: activating posix locks\n");
> + conn->want |= FUSE_CAP_POSIX_LOCKS;
> + } else {
> + if (lo->debug)
> + fprintf(stderr, "lo_init: disabling posix locks\n");
> + conn->want &= ~FUSE_CAP_POSIX_LOCKS;
> + }
> + }
> if ((lo->cache == CACHE_NONE && !lo->readdirplus_set) ||
> lo->readdirplus_clear) {
> if (lo->debug)
> fprintf(stderr, "lo_init: disabling readdirplus\n");
> conn->want &= ~FUSE_CAP_READDIRPLUS;
> }
> -
> }
>
> static void lo_getattr(fuse_req_t req, fuse_ino_t ino,
> @@ -673,6 +697,8 @@ static int lo_do_lookup(fuse_req_t req,
> newfd = -1;
> inode->key.ino = e->attr.st_ino;
> inode->key.dev = e->attr.st_dev;
> + pthread_mutex_init(&inode->plock_mutex, NULL);
> + inode->posix_locks = g_hash_table_new(g_direct_hash, g_direct_equal);
>
> pthread_mutex_lock(&lo->mutex);
> inode->fuse_ino = lo_add_inode_mapping(req, inode);
> @@ -1038,6 +1064,11 @@ static void unref_inode(struct lo_data *
> if (!inode->refcount) {
> lo_map_remove(&lo->ino_map, inode->fuse_ino);
> g_hash_table_remove(lo->inodes, &inode->key);
> + if (g_hash_table_size(inode->posix_locks)) {
> + warn("Hash table is not empty\n");
> + }
> + g_hash_table_destroy(inode->posix_locks);
> + pthread_mutex_destroy(&inode->plock_mutex);
> pthread_mutex_unlock(&lo->mutex);
> close(inode->fd);
> free(inode);
> @@ -1379,6 +1410,131 @@ out:
> fuse_reply_create(req, &e, fi);
> }
>
> +/* Should be called with inode->plock_mutex held */
> +static struct lo_inode_plock *lookup_create_plock_ctx(struct lo_data *lo,
> + struct lo_inode *inode, uint64_t lock_owner,
> + pid_t pid, int *err)
> +{
> + struct lo_inode_plock *plock;
> + char procname[64];
> + int fd;
> +
> + plock = g_hash_table_lookup(inode->posix_locks,
> + GUINT_TO_POINTER(lock_owner));
> +
> + if (plock)
> + return plock;
> +
> + plock = malloc(sizeof(struct lo_inode_plock));
> + if (!plock) {
> + *err = ENOMEM;
> + return NULL;
> + }
> +
> + /* Open another instance of file which can be used for ofd locks. */
> + sprintf(procname, "%i", inode->fd);
> +
> + /* TODO: What if file is not writable? */
> + fd = openat(lo->proc_self_fd, procname, O_RDWR);
> + if (fd == -1) {
> + *err = -errno;
> + free(plock);
> + return NULL;
> + }
> +
> + plock->lock_owner = lock_owner;
> + plock->fd = fd;
> + g_hash_table_insert(inode->posix_locks,
> + GUINT_TO_POINTER(plock->lock_owner), plock);
> + return plock;
> +}
> +
> +static void lo_getlk(fuse_req_t req, fuse_ino_t ino,
> + struct fuse_file_info *fi, struct flock *lock)
> +{
> + struct lo_data *lo = lo_data(req);
> + struct lo_inode *inode;
> + struct lo_inode_plock *plock;
> + int ret, saverr = 0;
> +
> + if (lo_debug(req))
> + fprintf(stderr, "lo_getlk(ino=%" PRIu64 ", flags=%d)"
> + " owner=0x%lx, l_type=%d l_start=0x%lx"
> + " l_len=0x%lx\n", ino, fi->flags, fi->lock_owner,
> + lock->l_type, lock->l_start, lock->l_len);
> +
> + inode = lo_inode(req, ino);
> + if (!inode) {
> + fuse_reply_err(req, EBADF);
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + pthread_mutex_lock(&inode->plock_mutex);
> + plock = lookup_create_plock_ctx(lo, inode, fi->lock_owner, lock->l_pid,
> + &ret);
> + if (!plock) {
> + pthread_mutex_unlock(&inode->plock_mutex);
> + fuse_reply_err(req, ret);
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + ret = fcntl(plock->fd, F_OFD_GETLK, lock);
lock->l_pid is set to the host's process holding this lock, right? if
so, would it confuse guest's processes?
> + if (ret == -1)
> + saverr = errno;
> + pthread_mutex_unlock(&inode->plock_mutex);
> +
> + if (saverr)
> + fuse_reply_err(req, saverr);
> + else
> + fuse_reply_lock(req, lock);
> +}
> +
> +static void lo_setlk(fuse_req_t req, fuse_ino_t ino,
> + struct fuse_file_info *fi, struct flock *lock, int sleep)
> +{
> + struct lo_data *lo = lo_data(req);
> + struct lo_inode *inode;
> + struct lo_inode_plock *plock;
> + int ret, saverr = 0;
> +
> + if (lo_debug(req))
> + fprintf(stderr, "lo_setlk(ino=%" PRIu64 ", flags=%d)"
> + " cmd=%d pid=%d owner=0x%lx sleep=%d l_whence=%d"
> + " l_start=0x%lx l_len=0x%lx\n", ino, fi->flags,
> + lock->l_type, lock->l_pid, fi->lock_owner, sleep,
> + lock->l_whence, lock->l_start, lock->l_len);
> +
> + if (sleep) {
> + fuse_reply_err(req, EOPNOTSUPP);
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + inode = lo_inode(req, ino);
> + if (!inode) {
> + fuse_reply_err(req, EBADF);
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + pthread_mutex_lock(&inode->plock_mutex);
> + plock = lookup_create_plock_ctx(lo, inode, fi->lock_owner, lock->l_pid,
> + &ret);
> +
> + if (!plock) {
> + pthread_mutex_unlock(&inode->plock_mutex);
> + fuse_reply_err(req, ret);
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + /* TODO: Is it alright to modify flock? */
Guess we have to set it to 0, otherwise, fcntl would return EINVAL.
Overall looks good.
Reviewed-by: Liu Bo <bo.liu@linux.alibaba.com>
thanks,
-liubo
> + lock->l_pid = 0;
> + ret = fcntl(plock->fd, F_OFD_SETLK, lock);
> + if (ret == -1) {
> + saverr = errno;
> + }
> + pthread_mutex_unlock(&inode->plock_mutex);
> + fuse_reply_err(req, saverr);
> +}
> +
> static void lo_fsyncdir(fuse_req_t req, fuse_ino_t ino, int datasync,
> struct fuse_file_info *fi)
> {
> @@ -1476,6 +1632,31 @@ static void lo_flush(fuse_req_t req, fus
> {
> int res;
> (void) ino;
> + struct lo_inode *inode;
> + struct lo_inode_plock *plock;
> +
> + inode = lo_inode(req, ino);
> + if (!inode) {
> + fuse_reply_err(req, EBADF);
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + /* An fd is going away. Cleanup associated posix locks */
> + pthread_mutex_lock(&inode->plock_mutex);
> + plock = g_hash_table_lookup(inode->posix_locks,
> + GUINT_TO_POINTER(fi->lock_owner));
> + if (plock) {
> + g_hash_table_remove(inode->posix_locks,
> + GUINT_TO_POINTER(fi->lock_owner));
> + /*
> + * We had used open() for locks and had only one fd. So
> + * closing this fd should release all OFD locks.
> + */
> + close(plock->fd);
> + free(plock);
> + }
> + pthread_mutex_unlock(&inode->plock_mutex);
> +
> res = close(dup(lo_fi_fd(req, fi)));
> fuse_reply_err(req, res == -1 ? errno : 0);
> }
> @@ -1974,6 +2155,8 @@ static struct fuse_lowlevel_ops lo_oper
> .releasedir = lo_releasedir,
> .fsyncdir = lo_fsyncdir,
> .create = lo_create,
> + .getlk = lo_getlk,
> + .setlk = lo_setlk,
> .open = lo_open,
> .release = lo_release,
> .flush = lo_flush,
> @@ -2217,6 +2400,7 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
> struct fuse_cmdline_opts opts;
> struct lo_data lo = { .debug = 0,
> .writeback = 0,
> + .posix_lock = 1,
> .proc_self_fd = -1,
> };
> struct lo_map_elem *root_elem;
>
> _______________________________________________
> Virtio-fs mailing list
> Virtio-fs@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/virtio-fs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [Virtio-fs] [PATCH V3] virtiofsd: Support remote posix locks
2019-06-11 19:08 ` Liu Bo
@ 2019-06-11 19:30 ` Vivek Goyal
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Vivek Goyal @ 2019-06-11 19:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Liu Bo; +Cc: virtio-fs-list
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 12:08:47PM -0700, Liu Bo wrote:
[..]
> > +static void lo_getlk(fuse_req_t req, fuse_ino_t ino,
> > + struct fuse_file_info *fi, struct flock *lock)
> > +{
> > + struct lo_data *lo = lo_data(req);
> > + struct lo_inode *inode;
> > + struct lo_inode_plock *plock;
> > + int ret, saverr = 0;
> > +
> > + if (lo_debug(req))
> > + fprintf(stderr, "lo_getlk(ino=%" PRIu64 ", flags=%d)"
> > + " owner=0x%lx, l_type=%d l_start=0x%lx"
> > + " l_len=0x%lx\n", ino, fi->flags, fi->lock_owner,
> > + lock->l_type, lock->l_start, lock->l_len);
> > +
> > + inode = lo_inode(req, ino);
> > + if (!inode) {
> > + fuse_reply_err(req, EBADF);
> > + return;
> > + }
> > +
> > + pthread_mutex_lock(&inode->plock_mutex);
> > + plock = lookup_create_plock_ctx(lo, inode, fi->lock_owner, lock->l_pid,
> > + &ret);
> > + if (!plock) {
> > + pthread_mutex_unlock(&inode->plock_mutex);
> > + fuse_reply_err(req, ret);
> > + return;
> > + }
> > +
> > + ret = fcntl(plock->fd, F_OFD_GETLK, lock);
>
> lock->l_pid is set to the host's process holding this lock, right? if
> so, would it confuse guest's processes?
man fcntl says following.
F_GETLK (struct flock *)
...
...
If the conflicting lock is a traditional (process-associated) record
lock, then the l_pid field is set to the PID of the process
holding that lock. If the conflicting lock is an open file
description lock, then l_pid is set to -1. Note that the
returned information may already be out of date by the time the
caller inspects it.
daemon does not do posix locks. It might have put OFD or BSD lock. In that
case I think -1 will be returned. If some other process has put POSIX
lock on same file (a process operating on shared dir exported to guest),
I think in that case pid of that process will be returned.
I agree that it does not make much sense to return pid of a process
outside the guest.
For now, I am inclined to leave it as it is and if this becomes an issue,
its a simple fix anyway.
[..]
> > +static void lo_setlk(fuse_req_t req, fuse_ino_t ino,
> > + struct fuse_file_info *fi, struct flock *lock, int sleep)
> > +{
> > + struct lo_data *lo = lo_data(req);
> > + struct lo_inode *inode;
> > + struct lo_inode_plock *plock;
> > + int ret, saverr = 0;
> > +
> > + if (lo_debug(req))
> > + fprintf(stderr, "lo_setlk(ino=%" PRIu64 ", flags=%d)"
> > + " cmd=%d pid=%d owner=0x%lx sleep=%d l_whence=%d"
> > + " l_start=0x%lx l_len=0x%lx\n", ino, fi->flags,
> > + lock->l_type, lock->l_pid, fi->lock_owner, sleep,
> > + lock->l_whence, lock->l_start, lock->l_len);
> > +
> > + if (sleep) {
> > + fuse_reply_err(req, EOPNOTSUPP);
> > + return;
> > + }
> > +
> > + inode = lo_inode(req, ino);
> > + if (!inode) {
> > + fuse_reply_err(req, EBADF);
> > + return;
> > + }
> > +
> > + pthread_mutex_lock(&inode->plock_mutex);
> > + plock = lookup_create_plock_ctx(lo, inode, fi->lock_owner, lock->l_pid,
> > + &ret);
> > +
> > + if (!plock) {
> > + pthread_mutex_unlock(&inode->plock_mutex);
> > + fuse_reply_err(req, ret);
> > + return;
> > + }
> > +
> > + /* TODO: Is it alright to modify flock? */
>
> Guess we have to set it to 0, otherwise, fcntl would return EINVAL.
Why do you think fcntl() will return EINVAL. I am not seeing that in my
testing.
I put this comment to figure out if I need to allocate another flock
structure and copy arguments from the one passed to me. Or I can reuse
the one passed to me, overwrite l_pid and continue.
Thanks
Vivek
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2019-06-11 19:30 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2019-06-10 19:22 [Virtio-fs] [PATCH V3] virtiofsd: Support remote posix locks Vivek Goyal
2019-06-11 9:34 ` Dr. David Alan Gilbert
2019-06-11 19:08 ` Liu Bo
2019-06-11 19:30 ` Vivek Goyal
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.