Re: [RFC PATCH v2 00/19] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal V1,000,002 ;-)

From: Jan Kara
Date: Thu Aug 15 2019 - 09:06:04 EST

On Wed 14-08-19 11:08:49, Ira Weiny wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 12:17:14PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > Hello!
> >
> > On Fri 09-08-19 15:58:14, ira.weiny@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > Pre-requisites
> > > ==============
> > > Based on mmotm tree.
> > >
> > > Based on the feedback from LSFmm, the LWN article, the RFC series since
> > > then, and a ton of scenarios I've worked in my mind and/or tested...[1]
> > >
> > > Solution summary
> > > ================
> > >
> > > The real issue is that there is no use case for a user to have RDMA pinn'ed
> > > memory which is then truncated. So really any solution we present which:
> > >
> > > A) Prevents file system corruption or data leaks
> > > ...and...
> > > B) Informs the user that they did something wrong
> > >
> > > Should be an acceptable solution.
> > >
> > > Because this is slightly new behavior. And because this is going to be
> > > specific to DAX (because of the lack of a page cache) we have made the user
> > > "opt in" to this behavior.
> > >
> > > The following patches implement the following solution.
> > >
> > > 0) Registrations to Device DAX char devs are not affected
> > >
> > > 1) The user has to opt in to allowing page pins on a file with an exclusive
> > > layout lease. Both exclusive and layout lease flags are user visible now.
> > >
> > > 2) page pins will fail if the lease is not active when the file back page is
> > > encountered.
> > >
> > > 3) Any truncate or hole punch operation on a pinned DAX page will fail.
> >
> > So I didn't fully grok the patch set yet but by "pinned DAX page" do you
> > mean a page which has corresponding file_pin covering it? Or do you mean a
> > page which has pincount increased? If the first then I'd rephrase this to
> > be less ambiguous, if the second then I think it is wrong.
> I mean the second. but by "fail" I mean hang. Right now the "normal" page
> pincount processing will hang the truncate. Given the discussion with John H
> we can make this a bit better if we use something like FOLL_PIN and the page
> count bias to indicate this type of pin. Then I could fail the truncate
> outright. but that is not done yet.
> so... I used the word "fail" to be a bit more vague as the final implementation
> may return ETXTBUSY or hang as noted.

Ah, OK. Hanging is fine in principle but with longterm pins, your work
makes sure they actually fail with ETXTBUSY, doesn't it? The thing is that
e.g. DIO will use page pins as well for its buffers and we must wait there
until the pin is released. So please just clarify your 'fail' here a bit

> > > 4) The user has the option of holding the lease or releasing it. If they
> > > release it no other pin calls will work on the file.
> >
> > Last time we spoke the plan was that the lease is kept while the pages are
> > pinned (and an attempt to release the lease would block until the pages are
> > unpinned). That also makes it clear that the *lease* is what is making
> > truncate and hole punch fail with ETXTBUSY and the file_pin structure is
> > just an implementation detail how the existence is efficiently tracked (and
> > what keeps the backing file for the pages open so that the lease does not
> > get auto-destroyed). Why did you change this?
> closing the file _and_ unmaping it will cause the lease to be released
> regardless of if we allow this or not.
> As we discussed preventing the close seemed intractable.

Yes, preventing the application from closing the file is difficult. But
from a quick look at your patches it seemed to me that you actually hold a
backing file reference from the file_pin structure thus even though the
application closes its file descriptor, the struct file (and thus the
lease) lives further until the file_pin gets released. And that should last
as long as the pages are pinned. Am I missing something?

> I thought about failing the munmap but that seemed wrong as well. But more
> importantly AFAIK RDMA can pass its memory pins to other processes via FD
> passing... This means that one could pin this memory, pass it to another
> process and exit. The file lease on the pin'ed file is lost.

Not if file_pin grabs struct file reference as I mentioned above...

> The file lease is just a key to get the memory pin. Once unlocked the procfs
> tracking keeps track of where that pin goes and which processes need to be
> killed to get rid of it.

I think having file lease being just a key to get the pin is conceptually
wrong. The lease is what expresses: "I'm accessing these blocks directly,
don't touch them without coordinating with me." So it would be only natural
if we maintained the lease while we are accessing blocks instead of
transferring this protection responsibility to another structure - namely
file_pin - and letting the lease go. But maybe I miss some technical reason
why maintaining file lease is difficult. If that's the case, I'd like to hear

> > > 5) Closing the file is ok.
> > >
> > > 6) Unmapping the file is ok
> > >
> > > 7) Pins against the files are tracked back to an owning file or an owning mm
> > > depending on the internal subsystem needs. With RDMA there is an owning
> > > file which is related to the pined file.
> > >
> > > 8) Only RDMA is currently supported
> >
> > If you currently only need "owning file" variant in your patch set, then
> > I'd just implement that and leave "owning mm" variant for later if it
> > proves to be necessary. The things are complex enough as is...
> I can do that... I was trying to get io_uring working as well with the
> owning_mm but I should save that for later.

Ah, OK. Yes, I guess io_uring can be next step.

Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx>