On Mon, Aug 02, 2021 at 06:34:17PM +0200, Max Reitz wrote: > On 02.08.21 13:30, Gal Hammer wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, 2 Aug 2021 at 13:49, Max Reitz <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > On 02.08.21 12:44, Gal Hammer wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 2 Aug 2021 at 13:36, Dr. David Alan Gilbert > > > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote: > > > > > > * Gal Hammer ([email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>) wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > When using NFS as a shared folder (mount type nfs4) with a > > Linux > > > guest I > > > > have the following issue: > > > > > > > > Guest: > > > > $ ls -la /mnt/shared > > > > total 8 > > > > drwxr-xrwx. 2 135 135 4096 Aug 2 13:08 . > > > > dr-xr-xr-x. 17 root root 224 May 23 10:58 .. > > > > -rw-r--rw-. 1 135 135 27 Aug 2 13:07 readme.txt > > > > > > > > Host: > > > > $ rm readme.txt > > > > > > > > Guest: > > > > $ ls -la /mnt/shared > > > > total 8 > > > > drwxr-xrwx. 2 135 135 4096 Aug 2 13:10 . > > > > dr-xr-xr-x. 17 root root 224 May 23 10:58 .. > > > > -rw-r--rw-. 1 135 135 27 Aug 2 13:07 > > > .nfs0000000001b600d000000005 > > > > > > > > Guest: > > > > $ cat /mnt/shared/readme.txt > > > > This is a readme.txt file. > > > > > > > > So it seems that the virtiofsd has a reference to the file > > which > > > the guest > > > > is not aware of and is unable to send a FUSE_FORGET message. > > > This results > > > > in a file not actually deleted (renamed to .nfsXXX) and is > > still > > > accessible > > > > by the guest. > > > > > > > > I have a similar problem when deleting a file from a Windows > > > guest side. > > > > The FUSE_READDIR(PLUS) commands add a reference count to files > > > which the OS > > > > doesn't have a file context for. However I was able to > > solve it > > > (for now?) > > > > by keeping track of returned files' inodes. > > > > > > > > Is this behaviour current and by design? > > > > > > Current problem, not really by design; the problem is the > > O_PATH files > > > that we have open for the inodes. I thought if the guest > > sent the > > > forget for the file then it got closed. > > > > > > > > > So if I understand then sending forget message for each inode > > returned > > > by readdir won't solve the problem because you need the open > > files for > > > inodes? > > > > virtiofsd internally keeps an lo_inode object for every inode that > > has > > been looked up at some point, and every such lo_inode contains an > > O_PATH > > fd referencing that inode. I don’t know by heart what the conditions > > for dropping those lo_inode objects are. > > > > > > I think it depends on the guest's forget message. > > Yes, it looks like it. > > > However, once it’s possible to use file handles to reference inodes > > instead of O_PATH fds (already in virtiofsd-rs, for virtiofsd there’s > > this series: > > https://listman.redhat.com/archives/virtio-fs/2021-July/msg00050.html > > > > <https://listman.redhat.com/archives/virtio-fs/2021-July/msg00050.html>), > > > > then giving the appropriate options (-o inode_file_handles -o > > modcaps=+dac_read_search) should result in no O_PATH fds being kept > > around anymore, so that deleting an inode on the host will result > > in the > > inode being truly deleted (unless the guest still has it open). > > > > > > Will the guest will still need to send forget messages with this new > > feature? > > I don’t think so. With file handles, FDs should only be opened (and kept > open) when the guest actually opens some file. (Aside from temporary O_PATH > FDs e.g. during a lookup.)
I guess FORGET messages will still have to be sent so that virtiofsd can free lo_inode() and associated data structrues when reference count reaches zero. So FORGET message is more like a dropping guest's reference count on lo_inode. Gal, I think we had discussed this nfs issue in the past. And problem probably is that dentry/inode is cached in guest. And that's why lo_inode is around hence O_PATH fd is around. If you do drop caches in guest, that might lead to removal of this temp file (sync; echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches). Max, interesting point that using file handles should help with this situation. Vivek _______________________________________________ Virtio-fs mailing list [email protected] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/virtio-fs
