Re: [man-pages RFC PATCH v4] statx, inode: document the new STATX_INO_VERSION field

Trond Myklebust
2022-09-15T15:15:56Z

On Thu, 2022-09-15 at 10:06 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 09:14:32AM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> > On Mon, 12 Sep 2022, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > > On Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 08:13:11AM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 09 Sep 2022, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The machine crashes and comes back up, and we get a query for
> > > > > i_version
> > > > > and it comes back as X. Fine, it's an old version. Now there
> > > > > is a write.
> > > > > What do we do to ensure that the new value doesn't collide
> > > > > with X+1?
> > > >
> > > > (I missed this bit in my earlier reply..)
> > > >
> > > > How is it "Fine" to see an old version?
> > > > The file could have changed without the version changing.
> > > > And I thought one of the goals of the crash-count was to be
> > > > able to
> > > > provide a monotonic change id.
> > >
> > > I was still mainly thinking about how to provide reliable close-
> > > to-open
> > > semantics between NFS clients.  In the case the writer was an NFS
> > > client, it wasn't done writing (or it would have COMMITted), so
> > > those
> > > writes will come in and bump the change attribute soon, and as
> > > long as
> > > we avoid the small chance of reusing an old change attribute,
> > > we're OK,
> > > and I think it'd even still be OK to advertise
> > > CHANGE_TYPE_IS_MONOTONIC_INCR.
> >
> > You seem to be assuming that the client doesn't crash at the same
> > time
> > as the server (maybe they are both VMs on a host that lost
> > power...)
> >
> > If client A reads and caches, client B writes, the server crashes
> > after
> > writing some data (to already allocated space so no inode update
> > needed)
> > but before writing the new i_version, then client B crashes.
> > When server comes back the i_version will be unchanged but the data
> > has
> > changed.  Client A will cache old data indefinitely...
>
> I guess I assume that if all we're promising is close-to-open, then a
> client isn't allowed to trust its cache in that situation.  Maybe
> that's
> an overly draconian interpretation of close-to-open.
>
> Also, I'm trying to think about how to improve things incrementally.
> Incorporating something like a crash count into the on-disk i_version
> fixes some cases without introducing any new ones or regressing
> performance after a crash.
>
> If we subsequently wanted to close those remaining holes, I think
> we'd
> need the change attribute increment to be seen as atomic with respect
> to
> its associated change, both to clients and (separately) on disk.
> (That
> would still allow the change attribute to go backwards after a crash,
> to
> the value it held as of the on-disk state of the file.  I think
> clients
> should be able to deal with that case.)
>
> But, I don't know, maybe a bigger hammer would be OK:
>

If you're not going to meet the minimum bar of data integrity, then
this whole exercise is just a massive waste of everyone's time. The
answer then going forward is just to recommend never using Linux as an
NFS server. Makes my life much easier, because I no longer have to
debug any of the issues.

>

--
Trond Myklebust
Linux NFS client maintainer, Hammerspace
trond.myklebust@hammerspace.com