From: "Frank Filz" <ffilzlnx@mindspring.com>
To: "'NeilBrown'" <neilb@suse.de>
Cc: "'J. Bruce Fields'" <bfields@fieldses.org>,
"'Chuck Lever'" <chuck.lever@oracle.com>,
<linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>,
"'Josef Bacik'" <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] BTRFS/NFSD: provide more unique inode number for btrfs export
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2021 16:46:12 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <005801d79b9d$b8437b80$28ca7280$@mindspring.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <163010502766.7591.10398654528737145909@noble.neil.brown.name>
> On Sat, 28 Aug 2021, Frank Filz wrote:
> >
> > Changing the fsid for sub-volumes is Ganesha's solution (before adding
> > that, we couldn't even export the sub-volumes at all).
>
> What does Ganesha use for the mounted-on-fileid? There doesn't seem to be an
> "obvious" answer so I wonder what was chosen.
We only make mounted_on_fileid different from fileid on our export boundaries, and even then, it's not a terribly correct thing for FSAL_VFS (our module for interfacing with kernel filesystems) since user space to my knowledge has no way to get any information on an inode that serves as a mount point.
What clients actually do anything with mounted_on_fileid, and what sorts of things do they do with it? I know the AIX client was interested in it (from having worked on security negotiation back in 2006), but I have never been able to test Ganesha with an AIX client. For normal Linux client operations, what Ganesha does seems to work OK.
> >
> > Mangling the fileid is definitely the best solution if there will be lots of sub-
> volumes. For a few sub-volumes changing fsid does create additional mount
> points on the client with some issues, but does guarantee there will be no fileid
> collision.
> >
> > My gut feel is your solution is the best one and Ganesha may need to switch to
> that solution.
>
> Thanks for the encouragement. Changing the fsid does seem easier is many
> ways, but I don't really like the consequences or implications.
Yea, there really isn't a good solution here.
Probably really client applications need to do something different to detect infinite loops and not care so much about unique fileids.
Frank
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-08-27 23:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 51+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-08-26 4:28 [PATCH] NFSD: drop support for ancient file-handles NeilBrown
2021-08-26 6:03 ` [PATCH v2] BTRFS/NFSD: provide more unique inode number for btrfs export NeilBrown
2021-08-26 20:19 ` J. Bruce Fields
2021-08-26 22:10 ` NeilBrown
2021-08-27 14:53 ` Frank Filz
2021-08-27 22:57 ` NeilBrown
2021-08-27 23:46 ` Frank Filz [this message]
2021-08-27 23:55 ` NeilBrown
2021-08-28 2:21 ` Frank Filz
2021-08-27 18:32 ` J. Bruce Fields
2021-08-27 23:01 ` NeilBrown
2021-08-27 16:20 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-08-27 23:05 ` NeilBrown
2021-08-28 7:09 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-08-31 4:59 ` NeilBrown
2021-09-01 7:20 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-09-01 15:22 ` J. Bruce Fields
2021-09-02 4:14 ` NeilBrown
2021-09-05 16:07 ` J. Bruce Fields
2021-09-06 1:29 ` NeilBrown
2021-09-11 14:12 ` Amir Goldstein
2021-09-13 0:43 ` NeilBrown
2021-09-13 10:04 ` Amir Goldstein
2021-09-13 22:59 ` NeilBrown
2021-09-14 5:45 ` Amir Goldstein
2021-09-20 22:09 ` NeilBrown
2021-09-02 7:11 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-09-02 4:06 ` NeilBrown
2021-09-02 7:16 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-09-02 7:53 ` Miklos Szeredi
2021-09-02 14:16 ` Frank Filz
2021-09-02 23:02 ` NeilBrown
2021-08-26 14:10 ` [PATCH] NFSD: drop support for ancient file-handles Chuck Lever III
2021-08-26 21:38 ` NeilBrown
2021-08-26 14:51 ` J. Bruce Fields
2021-08-26 21:41 ` NeilBrown
2021-08-27 15:15 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-08-27 23:24 ` NeilBrown
2021-08-31 4:41 ` [PATCH 1/2 v2] NFSD: drop support for ancient filehandles NeilBrown
2021-08-31 4:42 ` [PATCH 2/2] NFSD: simplify struct nfsfh NeilBrown
2021-09-01 7:44 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-09-01 7:44 ` [PATCH 1/2 v2] NFSD: drop support for ancient filehandles Christoph Hellwig
2021-09-01 14:21 ` Chuck Lever III
2021-09-02 1:14 ` [PATCH 1/3 v3] NFSD: move filehandle format declarations out of "uapi" NeilBrown
2021-09-02 1:15 ` [PATCH 2/3 v3] NFSD: drop support for ancient filehandles NeilBrown
2021-09-02 1:16 ` [PATCH 3/3 v3] NFSD: simplify struct nfsfh NeilBrown
2021-09-02 7:22 ` [PATCH 2/3 v3] NFSD: drop support for ancient filehandles Christoph Hellwig
2021-09-02 7:21 ` [PATCH 1/3 v3] NFSD: move filehandle format declarations out of "uapi" Christoph Hellwig
2021-09-23 21:21 ` Bruce Fields
2021-09-25 4:21 ` NeilBrown
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2021-07-27 22:37 [PATCH/RFC 00/11] expose btrfs subvols in mount table correctly NeilBrown
2021-08-13 1:45 ` [PATCH] VFS/BTRFS/NFSD: provide more unique inode number for btrfs export NeilBrown
2021-08-15 7:39 ` Goffredo Baroncelli
2021-08-15 19:35 ` Roman Mamedov
2021-08-15 22:17 ` NeilBrown
2021-08-23 4:05 ` [PATCH v2] BTRFS/NFSD: " 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='005801d79b9d$b8437b80$28ca7280$@mindspring.com' \
--to=ffilzlnx@mindspring.com \
--cc=bfields@fieldses.org \
--cc=chuck.lever@oracle.com \
--cc=josef@toxicpanda.com \
--cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=neilb@suse.de \
/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).