Hi Al-
I've returned and recovered from LCA and have no more excuse for keeping
my brain turned off:
On Fri, 1 Feb 2013, Al Viro wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 02:42:14PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 01:03:23PM -0800, Sage Weil wrote:
> >
> > > We should drop teh mds_client.c hunk from your patch, and then do
> > > something like the below. I'll put it in the ceph tree so we can do some
> > > basic testing. Unfortunately, the abort case is a bit annoying to
> > > trigger.. we'll need to write a new test for it.
> >
> > hunk dropped, the rest folded into your patch, resulting branch pushed...
>
> BTW, moderately related issue - ceph_get_dentry_parent_inode() uses
> look fishy. In ceph_rename() it seems to be pointless. We do have
> the directory inode of parent of old_dentry - it's old_dir, so it's just
> a fancy way to spell igrab(old_directory). And as far as I can tell, *all*
Yeah, that's an easy fix.
> other callers are racy.
> * link("a/foo", "b/bar") can happen in parallel with
> rename("a/foo", "c/splat"). link(2) holds ->i_mutex on a/foo (so it can't
> race
> with unlink) and on b/; rename(2) holds it on a/, c/ and c/splat (if the last
> one exists). It also holds ->s_vfs_rename_sem, so cross-directory renames
> are serialized. For normal filesystems that's enough and there ->link()
> couldn't care less about a/; ceph_link() wants the inode of a/ for some
> reason. If it *really* needs the parent of a/foo for the operation, the
> current code is SOL - the directory we grab can cease being that parent
> just as it's getting returned to ceph_link()
And I think this use is totally unnecessary.
> * ->d_revalidate() can happen in parallel with rename(). You
> don't seem to be using the parent inode much in there, so that should
> be reasonably easy to deal with.
This is the tricky one. We're looking at the parent because some of the
directory inode state is effectively a lease over the validity of the
directory's dentries. In the general case, this is more efficient than a
lot of per-dentry state in the client/server protocol.
Probably what we *should* be doing is linking to the parent from the
child's ceph_dentry_info under the MDS session mutex, so that it is
properly aligned with the state being passed from the server. I
considered this originally but was annoyed about essentially duplicating
d_parent. But... the locking being what it is, that is probably the only
way to make the d_revalidate completely safe. It'll be a bigger patch to
change that behavior, though.
> * ceph_open() can race with rename(); ->atomic_open() is
> called with parent locked, but ->open() isn't. AFAICS, open() with
> O_TRUNC could step into that code...
> * ceph_setattr() *definitely* can race with rename(); we have
> the object itself locked, but not its parent (and I'm really surprised
> by the need to know that parent for such operation).
> * CEPH_IOC_SET_LAYOUT vs. rename() - no idea what that ioctl is
> about, but opened files can be moved around, TYVM, even when they are
> in the middle of ioctl(2).
> * ->setxattr() and ->removexattr() - again, can happen in parallel
> with rename(), and again I really wonder why do we need the parent directory
> for such operations.
These are only there so that an fsync(dirfd) will wait for the file
creation or other metadata to commit. I suspect I am (heavily)
over-reading what POSIX says here... and should be concerned only with the
namespace modifications (link, unlink, rename, O_CREAT).
Assuming that's the case,
git://github.com/ceph/ceph-client.git #wip-dentries
has a set of patches that fix this up. (Well, except for d_revalidate,
which is a bigger change; opened #4023 in the ceph bug tracker.)
Thanks!
sage
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
