Re: [PATCH 01/19] fs: new API for handling inode->i_version
From: Jeff Layton
Date: Sun Dec 17 2017 - 08:01:56 EST
On Sat, 2017-12-16 at 15:17 +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 13 2017, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 09:04 +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 13 2017, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > >
> > > > +/*
> > > > + * The change attribute (i_version) is mandated by NFSv4 and is mostly for
> > > > + * knfsd, but is also used for other purposes (e.g. IMA). The i_version must
> > > > + * appear different to observers if there was a change to the inode's data or
> > > > + * metadata since it was last queried.
> > > > + *
> > > > + * It should be considered an opaque value by observers. If it remains the same
> > > > + * since it was last checked, then nothing has changed in the inode. If it's
> > > > + * different then something has changed. Observers cannot infer anything about
> > > > + * the nature or magnitude of the changes from the value, only that the inode
> > > > + * has changed in some fashion.
> > >
> > > I agree that it "should be" considered opaque, but I have a suspicion
> > > that NFSv4 doesn't consider it opaque.
> > > There is something about write delegations and the server performing a
> > > GETATTR callback to the delegated client so that it can answer GETATTR
> > > from other clients without recalling the delegation.
> > >
> > > Specifically section "10.4.3 Handling of CB_GETATTR" of RFC5661 contains
> > > the text:
> > >
> > > o The client will create a value greater than c that will be used
> > > for communicating that modified data is held at the client. Let
> > > this value be represented by d.
> > >
> > > "c" here is a 'change' attribute.
> > >
> > > Then:
> > >
> > > While the change attribute is opaque to the client in the sense that
> > > it has no idea what units of time, if any, the server is counting
> > > change with, it is not opaque in that the client has to treat it as
> > > an unsigned integer, and the server has to be able to see the results
> > > of the client's changes to that integer. Therefore, the server MUST
> > > encode the change attribute in network order when sending it to the
> > > client. The client MUST decode it from network order to its native
> > > order when receiving it, and the client MUST encode it in network
> > > order when sending it to the server. For this reason, change is
> > > defined as an unsigned integer rather than an opaque array of bytes.
> > >
> > > This all suggests that nfsd needs to be certain that "incrementing" the
> > > change id will produce a new changeid, which has not been used before,
> > > and also suggests that nfsd needs to be able to control the changeid
> > > stored after writes that result from a delegation being returned.
> > >
> > > I'd just like to say that this is one of the most annoying dumb features
> > > of NFSv4, because it is trivial to fix and I suggested a fix before
> > > NFSv4.0 was finalized. Grumble.
> > >
> > > Otherwise the patch set looks good. I haven't gone over the code
> > > closely, the but approach is spot-on.
> > I don't think we have to do that. There are really only two states with
> > a client holding a write delegation, as far as the server is concerned.
> > Either:
> > a) the client has done no writes to the file, in which case it'll return
> > the same i_version that the server has when issued a CB_GETATTR
> > ...or...
> > b) it has written to the file while holding the delegation, in which
> > case it'll return a different CB_GETATTR to the server
> > The simplest thing for the server to do is to just increment the change
> > attribute _once_ when it gets back a CB_GETATTR with a different change
> > attr than it has.
> > That's sufficient to tell another client issuing a a GETATTR that the
> > file has changed without needing to recall the delegation.
> > Prior to the delegation being returned, the client will send at least
> > one WRITE RPC, and that's enough to ensure that the the next stat will
> > see the thing increase.
> "increment" and "increase" are not words that mean anything for an
> "opaque value".
> NFSd is, presumably, an "observer" of i_version (as it isn't the
> filesytem that controls it), so your text says it must treat i_version as
> opaque. That means it cannot detect an "increase" (only a change), and
> it certainly cannot "increment" the value.
> I think you need to allow observers to treat i_version as a 64 bit number
> which will monotonically increase. Any change to the file will result
> in an increment of at least '1'.
Here, I was mostly speaking about NFS in general. I think the above
method is the cheapest/best way to ensure that you don't end up with
reused change attributes, within the confines of the protocol.
With this implementation, it's probably safe enough to make a guarantee
that the value will increase wrt a previously sampled value if there was
a change. I'll have to think about how best to document that.
Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>