Re: [PATCH V10 2/5] fuse: Passthrough initialization and release

[Alessio Balsini <balsini@android.com>]

Hi Tao,

On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 09:57:31AM +0800, Peng Tao wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 9:41 PM Alessio Balsini <balsini@android.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Peng,
> >
> > Thanks for the heads up!
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 09:33:34PM +0800, Peng Tao wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 12:19 AM Alessio Balsini <balsini@android.com> wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > > >  int fuse_passthrough_setup(struct fuse_conn *fc, struct fuse_file *ff,
> > > >                            struct fuse_open_out *openarg)
> > > >  {
> > > > -       return -EINVAL;
> > > > +       struct inode *passthrough_inode;
> > > > +       struct super_block *passthrough_sb;
> > > > +       struct fuse_passthrough *passthrough;
> > > > +       int passthrough_fh = openarg->passthrough_fh;
> > > > +
> > > > +       if (!fc->passthrough)
> > > > +               return -EPERM;
> > > > +
> > > > +       /* Default case, passthrough is not requested */
> > > > +       if (passthrough_fh <= 0)
> > > > +               return -EINVAL;
> > > > +
> > > > +       spin_lock(&fc->passthrough_req_lock);
> > > > +       passthrough = idr_remove(&fc->passthrough_req, passthrough_fh);
> > > > +       spin_unlock(&fc->passthrough_req_lock);
> > > > +
> > > > +       if (!passthrough)
> > > > +               return -EINVAL;
> > > > +
> > > > +       passthrough_inode = file_inode(passthrough->filp);
> > > > +       passthrough_sb = passthrough_inode->i_sb;
> > > > +       if (passthrough_sb->s_stack_depth >= FILESYSTEM_MAX_STACK_DEPTH) {
> > > Hi Alessio,
> > >
> > > passthrough_sb is the underlying filesystem superblock, right? It
> > > seems to prevent fuse passthrough fs from stacking on another fully
> > > stacked file system, instead of preventing other file systems from
> > > stacking on this fuse passthrough file system. Am I misunderstanding
> > > it?
> >
> > Correct, this checks the stacking depth on the lower filesystem.
> > This is an intended behavior to avoid the stacking of multiple FUSE
> > passthrough filesystems, and works because when a FUSE connection has
> > the passthrough feature activated, the file system updates its
> > s_stack_depth to FILESYSTEM_MAX_STACK_DEPTH in process_init_reply()
> > (PATCH 1/5), avoiding further stacking.
> >
> > Do you see issues with that?
> I'm considering a use case where a fuse passthrough file system is
> stacked on top of an overlayfs and/or an ecryptfs. The underlying
> s_stack_depth FILESYSTEM_MAX_STACK_DEPTH is rejected here so it is
> possible to have an overlayfs or an ecryptfs underneath but not both
> (with current FILESYSTEM_MAX_STACK_DEPTH being 2). How about changing
> passthrough fuse sb s_stack_depth to FILESYSTEM_MAX_STACK_DEPTH + 1 in
> PATCH 1/5, and allow passthrough_sb->s_stack_depth to be
> FILESYSTEM_MAX_STACK_DEPTH here? So that existing kernel stacking file
> system setups can all work as the underlying file system, while the
> stacking of multiple FUSE passthrough filesystems is still blocked.
> 


Sounds like a good idea, I'll think about it a bit more and if
everything's all right I'll post the new patchset.


> >
> > What I'm now thinking is that fuse_passthrough_open would probably be a
> > better place for this check, so that the ioctl() would fail and the user
> > space daemon may decide to skip passthrough and use legacy FUSE access
> > for that file (or, at least, be aware that something went wrong).
> >
> +1, fuse_passthrough_open seems to be a better place for the check.
> 
> > A more aggressive approach would be instead to move the stacking depth
> > check to fuse_fill_super_common, where we can update s_stack_depth to
> > lower-fs depth+1 and fail if passthrough is active and s_stack_depth is
> > greater than FILESYSTEM_MAX_STACK_DEPTH.
> >
> The lower layer files/directories might actually spread on different
> file systems. I'm not sure if s_stack_depth check is still possible at
> mount time. Even if we can calculate the substree s_stack_depth, it is
> still more flexible to determine on a per inode basis, right?
> 
> Cheers,
> Tao
> --
> Into Sth. Rich & Strange


Fair enough. The per-inode check is definitely the right way to proceed.

Thanks a lot for you feedback!
Alessio