linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ian Kent <ikent@redhat.com>
To: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.com>, Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>,
	Trond Myklebust <trondmy@primarydata.com>,
	"viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk" <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"mkoutny@suse.com" <mkoutny@suse.com>,
	"linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: Do we really need d_weak_revalidate???
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 15:51:18 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1b26f53b-803b-9a0c-fcb1-fd1e29a33dad@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a1f45199-8862-5c40-7b61-a7c6f3c42111@redhat.com>

On 23/08/17 10:54, Ian Kent wrote:
> On 23/08/17 10:40, Ian Kent wrote:
>> On 23/08/17 10:32, Ian Kent wrote:
>>> On 23/08/17 09:06, NeilBrown wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Aug 21 2017, Ian Kent wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A mount isn't triggered by kern_path(pathname, 0, &path).
>>>>>> That '0' would need to include one of
>>>>>>   LOOKUP_PARENT | LOOKUP_DIRECTORY |
>>>>>>   LOOKUP_OPEN | LOOKUP_CREATE | LOOKUP_AUTOMOUNT
>>>>>>
>>>>>> to trigger an automount (otherwise you just get -EISDIR).
>>>>>
>>>>> It's perfectly sensible to think that but there is a case where a
>>>>> a mount is triggered when using kern_path().
>>>>>
>>>>> The EISDIR return occurs for positive dentrys, negative dentrys
>>>>> will still trigger an automount (which is autofs specific,
>>>>> indirect mount map using nobrowse option, the install default).
>>>>
>>>> Ok, I understand this better now.  This difference between direct and
>>>> indirect mounts is slightly awkward. It is visible from user-space, but
>>>> not elegant to document.
>>>> When you use O_PATH to open a direct automount that has not already been
>>>> triggered, the open returns the underlying directory (and fstatfs
>>>> confirms that it is AUTOFS_SUPER_MAGIC).  When you use O_PATH on
>>>> an indirect automount, it *will* trigger the automount when "nobrowse" is
>>>> in effect, but it won't when "browse" is in effect.
>>>
>>> That inconsistency has bothered me for quite a while now.
>>>
>>> It was carried over from the autofs module behavior when automounting
>>> support was added to the VFS. What's worse is it prevents the use of
>>> the AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT flag from working properly with fstatat(2) and with
>>> statx().
>>>
>>> There is some risk in changing that so it does work but it really does
>>> need to work to enable userspace to not trigger an automount by using
>>> this flag.
>>>
>>> So that's (hopefully) going to change soonish, see:
>>> http://ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmotm/broken-out/autofs-fix-at_no_automount-not-being-honored.patch
>>>
>>> The result should be that stat family calls don't trigger automounts except
>>> for fstatat(2) and statx() which will require the AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT flag.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> So we cannot just say "O_PATH doesn't trigger automounts", which is
>>>> essentially what I said in
>>>>
>>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/docs/man-pages/man-pages.git/commit/?id=97a45d02e6671482e8b2cdcce3951930bf6bdb94
>>>>
>>>> It might be possible to modify automount so that it was more consistent
>>>> - i.e. if the point is triggered by a mkdir has been done, just to the
>>>> mkdir.  If it is triggered after a mkdir has been done, do the mount.  I
>>>> guess that might be racy, and in any case is hard to justify.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe I should change it to be about "direct automounts", and add a note
>>>> that indirect automounts aren't so predictable.
>>>
>>> Right and the semantics should be much more consistent in the near future.
>>> I hope (and expect) this semantic change won't cause problems.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> But back to my original issue of wanting to discard
>>>> kern_path_mountpoint, what would you think of the following approach -
>>>> slight revised from before.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> NeilBrown
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/fs/autofs4/autofs_i.h b/fs/autofs4/autofs_i.h
>>>> index beef981aa54f..7663ea82e68d 100644
>>>> --- a/fs/autofs4/autofs_i.h
>>>> +++ b/fs/autofs4/autofs_i.h
>>>> @@ -135,10 +135,13 @@ static inline struct autofs_info *autofs4_dentry_ino(struct dentry *dentry)
>>>>  /* autofs4_oz_mode(): do we see the man behind the curtain?  (The
>>>>   * processes which do manipulations for us in user space sees the raw
>>>>   * filesystem without "magic".)
>>>> + * A process performing certain ioctls can get temporary oz status.
>>>>   */
>>>> +extern struct task_struct *autofs_tmp_oz;
>>>>  static inline int autofs4_oz_mode(struct autofs_sb_info *sbi)
>>>>  {
>>>> -	return sbi->catatonic || task_pgrp(current) == sbi->oz_pgrp;
>>>> +	return sbi->catatonic || task_pgrp(current) == sbi->oz_pgrp ||
>>>> +		autofs_tmp_oz == current;
>>>>  }
>>>>  
>>>>  struct inode *autofs4_get_inode(struct super_block *, umode_t);
>>>> diff --git a/fs/autofs4/dev-ioctl.c b/fs/autofs4/dev-ioctl.c
>>>> index dd9f1bebb5a3..d76401669a20 100644
>>>> --- a/fs/autofs4/dev-ioctl.c
>>>> +++ b/fs/autofs4/dev-ioctl.c
>>>> @@ -200,6 +200,20 @@ static int autofs_dev_ioctl_protosubver(struct file *fp,
>>>>  	return 0;
>>>>  }
>>>>  
>>>> +struct task_struct *autofs_tmp_oz;
>>>> +int kern_path_oz(const char *pathname, int flags, struct path *path)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	static DEFINE_MUTEX(autofs_oz);
>>>> +	int err;
>>>> +
>>>> +	mutex_lock(&autofs_oz);
>>>> +	autofs_tmp_oz = current;
>>>> +	err = kern_path(pathname, flags, path);
>>>> +	autofs_tmp_oz = NULL;
>>>> +	mutex_unlock(&autofs_oz);
>>>> +	return err;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>
>>> It's simple enough but does look like it will attract criticism as being
>>> a hack!
>>>
>>> The kern_path_locked() function is very similar to what was originally
>>> done, along with code to look down the mount stack (rather than up the
>>> way it does now) to get the mount point. In this case, to be valid the
>>> dentry can't be a symlink so that fits kern_path_locked() too.
>>
>> Oh wait, that __lookup_hash() tries too hard to resolve the dentry,
>> that won't quite work, and maybe d_lookup() can't be used safely in
>> this context either ....
> 
> Umm .. d_lookup() does look ok so maybe path_parentat() + d_lookup()
> would be ok.

Double Umm ... with the patch above kern_path() with flags 0 or
LOOKUP_FOLLOW should get either EISDIR or ENOENT ... maybe I should
think occasionally !!  

> 
>>
>>>
>>> So maybe it is worth going back to the way it was in the beginning and
>>> be done with it .... OTOH Al must have had a reason for changing the
>>> way it was done that I didn't get.
>>>
>>>>  /* Find the topmost mount satisfying test() */
>>>>  static int find_autofs_mount(const char *pathname,
>>>>  			     struct path *res,
>>>> @@ -209,7 +223,8 @@ static int find_autofs_mount(const char *pathname,
>>>>  	struct path path;
>>>>  	int err;
>>>>  
>>>> -	err = kern_path_mountpoint(AT_FDCWD, pathname, &path, 0);
>>>> +	err = kern_path_oz(pathname, 0, &path);
>>>> +
>>>>  	if (err)
>>>>  		return err;
>>>>  	err = -ENOENT;
>>>> @@ -552,8 +567,7 @@ static int autofs_dev_ioctl_ismountpoint(struct file *fp,
>>>>  
>>>>  	if (!fp || param->ioctlfd == -1) {
>>>>  		if (autofs_type_any(type))
>>>> -			err = kern_path_mountpoint(AT_FDCWD,
>>>> -						   name, &path, LOOKUP_FOLLOW);
>>>> +			err = kern_path_oz(name, LOOKUP_FOLLOW, &path);
>>>>  		else
>>>>  			err = find_autofs_mount(name, &path,
>>>>  						test_by_type, &type);
>>>>
>>>
>>
> 

  reply	other threads:[~2017-08-23  7:51 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-08-11  4:31 Do we really need d_weak_revalidate??? NeilBrown
2017-08-11  5:55 ` Trond Myklebust
2017-08-11 11:01   ` Jeff Layton
2017-08-13 23:36     ` NeilBrown
2017-08-14 10:10       ` Jeff Layton
2017-08-16  2:43         ` NeilBrown
2017-08-16 11:34           ` Jeff Layton
2017-08-16 23:47             ` NeilBrown
2017-08-17  2:20             ` Ian Kent
2017-08-18  5:24               ` NeilBrown
2017-08-18  6:47                 ` Ian Kent
2017-08-18  6:55                   ` Ian Kent
2017-08-21  6:23                   ` NeilBrown
2017-08-21  6:32                     ` Ian Kent
2017-08-21  7:46                       ` NeilBrown
2017-08-23  1:06                       ` NeilBrown
2017-08-23  2:32                         ` Ian Kent
2017-08-23  2:40                           ` Ian Kent
2017-08-23  2:54                             ` Ian Kent
2017-08-23  7:51                               ` Ian Kent [this message]
2017-08-24  3:21                             ` NeilBrown
2017-08-24  4:35                               ` Ian Kent
2017-08-24  4:07                           ` NeilBrown
2017-08-24  4:47                             ` Ian Kent
2017-08-24  4:58                             ` Ian Kent
2017-08-24 11:03                             ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2017-08-25  0:05                               ` Ian Kent
2017-08-25  5:32                               ` [PATCH manpages] stat.2: correct AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT text and general revisions NeilBrown
2017-09-14 13:38                                 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2017-09-14 22:25                                   ` NeilBrown
2017-09-16 13:11                                     ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2017-09-08 15:15                             ` Do we really need d_weak_revalidate??? David Howells
2017-08-13 23:29   ` NeilBrown
2017-08-24  6:34     ` NeilBrown

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1b26f53b-803b-9a0c-fcb1-fd1e29a33dad@redhat.com \
    --to=ikent@redhat.com \
    --cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
    --cc=jlayton@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mkoutny@suse.com \
    --cc=neilb@suse.com \
    --cc=trondmy@primarydata.com \
    --cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).