Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/76] vfs: 'views' for filesystems with more than one root
From: Mark Fasheh
Date: Wed Jun 06 2018 - 16:42:24 EST
Hi Amir, thanks for the comments!
On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 12:49:48PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 11:17 PM, Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Sorry, just getting back to this.
> > On 5/9/18 2:41 AM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> >> On Tue, May 08, 2018 at 10:06:44PM -0400, Jeff Mahoney wrote:
> >>> On 5/8/18 7:38 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, May 08, 2018 at 11:03:20AM -0700, Mark Fasheh wrote:
> >>>>> Hi,
> >>>>> The VFS's super_block covers a variety of filesystem functionality. In
> >>>>> particular we have a single structure representing both I/O and
> >>>>> namespace domains.
> >>>>> There are requirements to de-couple this functionality. For example,
> >>>>> filesystems with more than one root (such as btrfs subvolumes) can
> >>>>> have multiple inode namespaces. This starts to confuse userspace when
> >>>>> it notices multiple inodes with the same inode/device tuple on a
> >>>>> filesystem.
> Speaking as someone who joined this discussion late, maybe years after
> it started, it would help to get an overview of existing problems and how
> fs_view aims to solve them.
> I do believe that both Overlayfs and Btrfs can benefit from a layer of
> in the VFS, but I think it is best if we start with laying all the
> common problems
> and then see how a solution would look like.
> Even the name of the abstraction (fs_view) doesn't make it clear to me what
> it is we are abstracting (security context? st_dev? what else?). probably best
> to try to describe the abstraction from user POV rather then give sporadic
> examples of what MAY go into fs_view.
The first problem fs_view intended to fix was the s_dev issue, where some
filesystems return a different device from stat(2) than what the rest of the
kernel exports. If you look at the e-mail record I referenced:
you'll see how that can confuse some userspace software when they try to
take the ino/dev pair they get from one portion of the kernel (for example,
/proc/pid/maps) then use it to resolve to an inode on the system.
As it turns out, there's other places where we might want to decouple some
superblock fields, hence why I mention security contexts. I am admittedly
less familiar with that particular problem but as I understand it,
containers on a btrfs subvolume have to go through an overlay to route
around the default security context. With fs_view we could point subvolumes
to their own security contexts.
Btw, sorry that the name is confusing. I've never been good at picking them.
That said, if you have a minute to check out the first patch or two you'll
see that the patches are basically putting a struct in between the super
block and the inode.
One thing I'd like to politely suggest is that anyone now following this
conversation to please read the at least the first patch. It's an easy read
and I feel like the conversation overall would be much more clear if
everyone understood what we're going for. I worry that I didn't do a
particularly good job explaining the actual code changes.
Regarding a layout of the problems, I have a more complete e-mail coming
soon which should describe in detail the issues I've seen with respect to
how the kernel is exporting ino/dev pairs (outside of statx). fs_view alone
is not enough to solve that problem. I'd be happy to CC you on that one if
> While at it, need to see if this discussion has any intersections with David
> Howell's fs_context work, because if we consider adding sub volume support
> to VFS, we may want to leave some reserved bits in the API for it.
> > One thing is clear: If we want to solve the btrfs and overlayfs problems
> > in the same way, the view approach with a simple static mapping doesn't
> > work. Sticking something between the inode and superblock doesn't get
> > the job done when the belongs to a different file system. Overlayfs
> > needs a per-object remapper, which means a callback that takes a path.
> > Suddenly the way we do things in the SUSE kernel doesn't seem so hacky
> > anymore.
> And what is the SUSE way?
At SUSE, we carry a version of this patch:
Essentially a callback which was rejected for various reasons.
The fs_view work was intended to replace that patch with an upstream
> > I'm not sure we need the same solution for btrfs and overlayfs. It's
> > not the same problem. Every object in overlayfs as a unique mapping
> > already. If we report s_dev and i_ino from the inode, it still maps to
> > a unique user-visible object. It may not map back to the overlayfs
> > name, but that's a separate issue that's more difficult to solve. The
> > btrfs issue isn't one of presenting an alternative namespace to the
> > user. Btrfs has multiple internal namespaces and no way to publish them
> > to the rest of the kernel.
> FYI, the Overlayfs file/inode mapping is about to change with many
> VFS hacks queued for removal, so stay tuned.
Actually, would you mind giving me a pointer to this work? I'd be very
interested to see what exactly might be changing.
> >> My point is that if we are talking about infrastructure to remap
> >> what userspace sees from different mountpoint views into a
> >> filesystem, then it should be done above the filesystem layers in
> >> the VFS so all filesystems behave the same way. And in this case,
> >> the vfsmount maps exactly to the "fs_view" that Mark has proposed we
> >> add to the superblock.....
> > It's proposed to be above the superblock with a default view in the
> > superblock. It would sit between the inode and the superblock so we
> > have access to it anywhere we already have an inode. That's the main
> > difference. We already have the inode everywhere it's needed. Plumbing
> > a vfsmount everywhere needed means changing code that only requires an
> > inode and doesn't need a vfsmount.
> > The two biggest problem areas:
> > - Writeback tracepoints print a dev/inode pair. Do we want to plumb a
> > vfsmount into __mark_inode_dirty, super_operations->write_inode,
> > __writeback_single_inode, writeback_sb_inodes, etc?
> > - Audit. As it happens, most of audit has a path or file that can be
> > used. We do run into problems with fsnotify. fsnotify_move is called
> > from vfs_rename which turns into a can of worms pretty quickly.
> Can you please elaborate on that problem.
> Do you mean when watching a directory for changes, you need to
> be able to tell in which fs_view the directory inode that is being watched?
Here Jeff is responding to Dave's suggestion that we use a vfsmount
instead of the fs_view. You cannot get to a vfsmount from an inode or even
dentry alone, so this implies that we'd be passing a vfsmount down a ton of
code that otherwise doesn't care about it.
fs_view has the advantage that it is accesible from the inode so those
places which ONLY have an inode can easily get to the correct device (the
code changes make this pretty clear).
> >>> It makes sense for that to be above the
> >>> superblock because the file system doesn't care about them. We're
> >>> interested in the inode namespace, which for every other file system can
> >>> be described using an inode and a superblock pair, but btrfs has another
> >>> layer in the middle: inode -> btrfs_root -> superblock.
> >> Which seems to me to be irrelevant if there's a vfsmount per
> >> subvolume that can hold per-subvolume information.
> > I disagree. There are a ton of places where we only have access to an
> > inode and only need access to an inode. It also doesn't solve the
> > overlayfs issue.
> I have an interest of solving another problem.
> In VFS operations where only inode is available, I would like to be able to
> report fsnotify events (e.g. fsnotify_move()) only in directories under a
> certain subtree root. That could be achieved either by bind mount the subtree
> root and passing vfsmount into vfs_rename() or by defining an fs_view on the
> subtree and mounting that fs_view.
I'm not sure whether fs_view works for this. Taking a quick look at
fsnotify, the state is already on the inode? If there's a globabl fsnotify
state that needs to be per subtree than yes we could move that to the
fs_view and you'd simply deref it from the inode struct.
I hope this helps,