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

NeilBrown
2022-09-08T00:32:38Z

On Wed, 07 Sep 2022, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Wed, 2022-09-07 at 09:12 -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > On Wed, 2022-09-07 at 08:52 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 07, 2022 at 08:47:20AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2022-09-07 at 21:37 +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 07 Sep 2022, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > > > > +The change to \fIstatx.stx_ino_version\fP is not atomic with
> > > > > > respect to the
> > > > > > +other changes in the inode. On a write, for instance, the
> > > > > > i_version it usually
> > > > > > +incremented before the data is copied into the pagecache.
> > > > > > Therefore it is
> > > > > > +possible to see a new i_version value while a read still
> > > > > > shows the old data.
> > > > >
> > > > > Doesn't that make the value useless?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > No, I don't think so. It's only really useful for comparing to an
> > > > older
> > > > sample anyway. If you do "statx; read; statx" and the value
> > > > hasn't
> > > > changed, then you know that things are stable.
> > >
> > > I don't see how that helps.  It's still possible to get:
> > >
> > >                 reader          writer
> > >                 ------          ------
> > >                                 i_version++
> > >                 statx
> > >                 read
> > >                 statx
> > >                                 update page cache
> > >
> > > right?
> > >
> >
> > Yeah, I suppose so -- the statx wouldn't necessitate any locking. In
> > that case, maybe this is useless then other than for testing purposes
> > and userland NFS servers.
> >
> > Would it be better to not consume a statx field with this if so? What
> > could we use as an alternate interface? ioctl? Some sort of global
> > virtual xattr? It does need to be something per-inode.
>
> I don't see how a non-atomic change attribute is remotely useful even
> for NFS.
>
> The main problem is not so much the above (although NFS clients are
> vulnerable to that too) but the behaviour w.r.t. directory changes.
>
> If the server can't guarantee that file/directory/... creation and
> unlink are atomically recorded with change attribute updates, then the
> client has to always assume that the server is lying, and that it has
> to revalidate all its caches anyway. Cue endless readdir/lookup/getattr
> requests after each and every directory modification in order to check
> that some other client didn't also sneak in a change of their own.

NFS re-export doesn't support atomic change attributes on directories.
Do we see the endless revalidate requests after directory modification
in that situation? Just curious.

Thanks,
NeilBrown