Re: [RFC] [PATCH 3/3] Recursive mtime for ext3

[Theodore Tso]

Ah, OK, so the two things that I didn't get from your patch
description are:

1) the rtime flag and rtime field are only set on directories
2) the intended use is not trackerd and its ilk, but rsync and updatedb,
   so it is desirable that scan/queries be persistent across reboots

But then the major hole in this scheme is still the issue of hard
links.  The rsync program is still going to have to scan the entire
subtree looking for hard links, since an inode with multiple links
into the directory tree can't guarantee that all of its parent
directories will have their rtime field updated.

A program like updatedb which only cares about filenames will be OK,
since that means it really only cares about knowing when directories
have changed, and you can't have hard links to directories.

The other problem, of course, is that this feature would become ext
2/3/4 specific, and I could see future filesystems possibly wanting
this.  So this raises the question of whether the interface should be
at the VFS layer or not --- and if so, how to handle querying whether
a particulra filesystem supports it, and what happens if you have a
subtree which is covered by a filesystem that doesn't support rtime?

So a program like rsync would need to scan /proc/self/mounts to see
whether or not it would be safe to use this feature in the first
place.  And, of course, rsync would need to know whether it has write
access to the tree in order to set flags in the directory, and what to
do if some portion of the subtree isn't writeable by rsync.

On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 11:56:42AM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > Note by the way that since you need to own the file/directory to set
> > flags, this means that only programs that are running as root or
> > running as the uid who owns the entire subtree will be able to use
> > this scheme.  One advantage of doing in kernel memory is that you
> > might be able to support watching a tree that is not owned by the
> > watcher.
>   Yes, that is the advantage. On the other hand we could allow setting that
> particular flag even without being an owner of the inode. In fact, I
> don't currently see use case where you won't be either root (rsync,
> updatedb) or an owner of the files (watching config file trees) but I guess
> people would find some :).

Sometimes people like to use rsync to copy a subtree to which they
have read access but not write access.  (And here note that it's not
enough to have write access, you actually need to *own* all of the
directories in the subtree).

Yes, it's safe to let any user *set* the rtime flag, but we couldn't
let them clear the rtime flag, since then they would be able to hide a
file modification from some other (potentially privileged) process.
Speaking of security, I assume your patch will never allow rtime to go
backwards (for example if the user attempts to backdate a file's mtime
field using the utime() or utimes() system call)?

I guess I'm convinced that updatedb could use this facility, but there
are enough asteriks around it that I'm not sure that rsync could
safely use this feature in production.  I don't doubt that in a cold
cache case, it would speed up rsync, but because it doesn't handle
hard links, it's not reliable.  Since rsync often gets used for
backups, this is a big deal.  There are also questions about what to
do if rsync doesn't have write access to the filesystem, or if there
is a non-rtime capable filesystem mounted in the subtree, etc., that
can be worked around, but would add a lot of complexity and grottiness
to the rsync source tree.  Is the rsync maintainer really willing to
add all of the necessary hair to support this rtime facility into
their program?

						- Ted
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/