| Message ID | 554A154B.6040103@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Wed, 06 May 2015 21:21:15 +0800 Kinglong Mee <kinglongmee@gmail.com> wrote: > If there are some mount points(not exported for nfs) under pseudo root, > after client's operation of those entry under the root, anyone *can't* > unmount those mount points until export cache expired. > > # cat /etc/exports > /nfs/xfs *(rw,insecure,no_subtree_check,no_root_squash) > /nfs/pnfs *(rw,insecure,no_subtree_check,no_root_squash) > # ll /nfs/ > total 0 > drwxr-xr-x. 3 root root 84 Apr 21 22:27 pnfs > drwxr-xr-x. 3 root root 84 Apr 21 22:27 test > drwxr-xr-x. 2 root root 6 Apr 20 22:01 xfs > # mount /dev/sde /nfs/test > # df > Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on > ...... > /dev/sdd 1038336 32944 1005392 4% /nfs/pnfs > /dev/sdc 10475520 32928 10442592 1% /nfs/xfs > /dev/sde 999320 1284 929224 1% /nfs/test > # mount -t nfs 127.0.0.1:/nfs/ /mnt > # ll /mnt/*/ > /mnt/pnfs/: > total 0 > -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 0 Apr 21 22:23 attr > drwxr-xr-x. 2 root root 6 Apr 21 22:19 tmp > > /mnt/xfs/: > total 0 > # umount /nfs/test/ > umount: /nfs/test/: target is busy > (In some cases useful info about processes that > use the device is found by lsof(8) or fuser(1).) > > I don't think that's user expect, they want umount /nfs/test/. > > It's caused by exports cache of nfsd holds the reference of > the path (here is /nfs/test/), so, it can't be umounted. > > The patch site using fs_pin instead of mntget for export cache, > user at nfs server can unmount any mount points includes exported > for nfs. Maybe, only umounted for unexported mount points is better? Thanks for this patch. It looks good! My only comment on the code is that I would really like to see a "path_get_pin()" and "path_put_unpin()" rather than open coding: > + dget(item->ek_path.dentry); > + pin_insert_group(&new->ek_pin, item->ek_path.mnt, NULL); and > + dput(key->ek_path.dentry); > + pin_remove(&key->ek_pin); But the question you raise is an important one: Exactly which filesystems should be allowed to be unmounted? This is a change in behaviour - is it one that people uniformly would want? The kernel doesn't currently know which file systems were explicitly listed in /etc/exports, and which were found by following a 'crossmnt'. It could guess and allow the unmounting of anything below a 'crossmnt', but I wouldn't be comfortable with that - it is error prone. mountd does know what is in /etc/exports, and could tell the kernel. For the expkey cache, we could always use path_get_pin. For the export cache (where flags are available) we could use path_get or path_get_pin depending on some new flag. I'm not really sure it is worth it. I would rather the filesystems could always be unmounted. But doing that could possibly break someone's work flow. Maybe. Or maybe I'm seeing problems where there aren't any. Anyone else have an opinion? Thanks, NeilBrown > > Signed-off-by: Kinglong Mee <kinglongmee@gmail.com> > --- > fs/nfsd/export.c | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------- > fs/nfsd/export.h | 10 +++++++++- > 2 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/nfsd/export.c b/fs/nfsd/export.c > index f79521a..80f82f5 100644 > --- a/fs/nfsd/export.c > +++ b/fs/nfsd/export.c > @@ -42,10 +42,12 @@ static void expkey_put(struct kref *ref) > struct svc_expkey *key = container_of(ref, struct svc_expkey, h.ref); > > if (test_bit(CACHE_VALID, &key->h.flags) && > - !test_bit(CACHE_NEGATIVE, &key->h.flags)) > - path_put(&key->ek_path); > + !test_bit(CACHE_NEGATIVE, &key->h.flags)) { > + dput(key->ek_path.dentry); > + pin_remove(&key->ek_pin); > + } > auth_domain_put(key->ek_client); > - kfree(key); > + kfree_rcu(key, rcu_head); > } > > static void expkey_request(struct cache_detail *cd, > @@ -120,6 +122,7 @@ static int expkey_parse(struct cache_detail *cd, char *mesg, int mlen) > goto out; > > key.ek_client = dom; > + key.cd = cd; > key.ek_fsidtype = fsidtype; > memcpy(key.ek_fsid, buf, len); > > @@ -210,6 +213,13 @@ static inline void expkey_init(struct cache_head *cnew, > new->ek_fsidtype = item->ek_fsidtype; > > memcpy(new->ek_fsid, item->ek_fsid, sizeof(new->ek_fsid)); > + new->cd = item->cd; > +} > + > +static void expkey_pin_kill(struct fs_pin *pin) > +{ > + struct svc_expkey *key = container_of(pin, struct svc_expkey, ek_pin); > + cache_force_expire(key->cd, &key->h); > } > > static inline void expkey_update(struct cache_head *cnew, > @@ -218,8 +228,10 @@ static inline void expkey_update(struct cache_head *cnew, > struct svc_expkey *new = container_of(cnew, struct svc_expkey, h); > struct svc_expkey *item = container_of(citem, struct svc_expkey, h); > > + init_fs_pin(&new->ek_pin, expkey_pin_kill); > new->ek_path = item->ek_path; > - path_get(&item->ek_path); > + dget(item->ek_path.dentry); > + pin_insert_group(&new->ek_pin, item->ek_path.mnt, NULL); > } > > static struct cache_head *expkey_alloc(void) > @@ -309,11 +321,13 @@ static void nfsd4_fslocs_free(struct nfsd4_fs_locations *fsloc) > static void svc_export_put(struct kref *ref) > { > struct svc_export *exp = container_of(ref, struct svc_export, h.ref); > - path_put(&exp->ex_path); > + > + dput(exp->ex_path.dentry); > + pin_remove(&exp->ex_pin); > auth_domain_put(exp->ex_client); > nfsd4_fslocs_free(&exp->ex_fslocs); > kfree(exp->ex_uuid); > - kfree(exp); > + kfree_rcu(exp, rcu_head); > } > > static void svc_export_request(struct cache_detail *cd, > @@ -694,15 +708,23 @@ static int svc_export_match(struct cache_head *a, struct cache_head *b) > path_equal(&orig->ex_path, &new->ex_path); > } > > +static void export_pin_kill(struct fs_pin *pin) > +{ > + struct svc_export *exp = container_of(pin, struct svc_export, ex_pin); > + cache_force_expire(exp->cd, &exp->h); > +} > + > static void svc_export_init(struct cache_head *cnew, struct cache_head *citem) > { > struct svc_export *new = container_of(cnew, struct svc_export, h); > struct svc_export *item = container_of(citem, struct svc_export, h); > > + init_fs_pin(&new->ex_pin, export_pin_kill); > kref_get(&item->ex_client->ref); > new->ex_client = item->ex_client; > new->ex_path = item->ex_path; > - path_get(&item->ex_path); > + dget(item->ex_path.dentry); > + pin_insert_group(&new->ex_pin, item->ex_path.mnt, NULL); > new->ex_fslocs.locations = NULL; > new->ex_fslocs.locations_count = 0; > new->ex_fslocs.migrated = 0; > @@ -811,6 +833,7 @@ exp_find_key(struct cache_detail *cd, struct auth_domain *clp, int fsid_type, > > key.ek_client = clp; > key.ek_fsidtype = fsid_type; > + key.cd = cd; > memcpy(key.ek_fsid, fsidv, key_len(fsid_type)); > > ek = svc_expkey_lookup(cd, &key); > diff --git a/fs/nfsd/export.h b/fs/nfsd/export.h > index 1f52bfc..1cf6ada 100644 > --- a/fs/nfsd/export.h > +++ b/fs/nfsd/export.h > @@ -4,6 +4,7 @@ > #ifndef NFSD_EXPORT_H > #define NFSD_EXPORT_H > > +#include <linux/fs_pin.h> > #include <linux/sunrpc/cache.h> > #include <uapi/linux/nfsd/export.h> > > @@ -46,6 +47,8 @@ struct exp_flavor_info { > > struct svc_export { > struct cache_head h; > + struct cache_detail *cd; > + > struct auth_domain * ex_client; > int ex_flags; > struct path ex_path; > @@ -58,7 +61,9 @@ struct svc_export { > struct exp_flavor_info ex_flavors[MAX_SECINFO_LIST]; > enum pnfs_layouttype ex_layout_type; > struct nfsd4_deviceid_map *ex_devid_map; > - struct cache_detail *cd; > + > + struct fs_pin ex_pin; > + struct rcu_head rcu_head; > }; > > /* an "export key" (expkey) maps a filehandlefragement to an > @@ -67,12 +72,15 @@ struct svc_export { > */ > struct svc_expkey { > struct cache_head h; > + struct cache_detail *cd; > > struct auth_domain * ek_client; > int ek_fsidtype; > u32 ek_fsid[6]; > > struct path ek_path; > + struct fs_pin ek_pin; > + struct rcu_head rcu_head; > }; > > #define EX_ISSYNC(exp) (!((exp)->ex_flags & NFSEXP_ASYNC))
On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 02:40:31PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote: > Thanks for this patch. It looks good! > > My only comment on the code is that I would really like to see a > "path_get_pin()" and "path_put_unpin()" rather than open coding: > > > + dget(item->ek_path.dentry); > > + pin_insert_group(&new->ek_pin, item->ek_path.mnt, NULL); > > and > > > + dput(key->ek_path.dentry); > > + pin_remove(&key->ek_pin); > > > But the question you raise is an important one: Exactly which filesystems > should be allowed to be unmounted? > This is a change in behaviour - is it one that people uniformly would want? > > The kernel doesn't currently know which file systems were explicitly listed > in /etc/exports, and which were found by following a 'crossmnt'. > It could guess and allow the unmounting of anything below a 'crossmnt', but I > wouldn't be comfortable with that - it is error prone. > > mountd does know what is in /etc/exports, and could tell the kernel. > For the expkey cache, we could always use path_get_pin. > For the export cache (where flags are available) we could use path_get > or path_get_pin depending on some new flag. > > I'm not really sure it is worth it. I would rather the filesystems could > always be unmounted. But doing that could possibly break someone's work > flow. Maybe. > > Or maybe I'm seeing problems where there aren't any. > > Anyone else have an opinion? The undisputed bug here was negative cache entries preventing unmount. So most conservative might be just to purge negative entries. Otherwise, the only guarantees I think we've really had is that we won't allow unmount if you hold any actual state on the filesystem (NLM locks, NFSv4 locks, opens, or delegations). If a filesystem is exported but no clients hold state on it, then it's currently mostly chance whether the unmount succeeds or not. So we're probably free to change the behavior in this case. I'd be inclined to allow the unmount, but haven't thought this through carefully. It could also be useful to have the ability to force an unmount even in the presence of locks. That's not a safe default, but an "allow_force_unmount" export option might be useful. We might similarly be able to add some way for the kernel to distinguish explicit exports from crossmnt-found exports, but I'm not seeing the use case for that. --b. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 5/8/2015 9:47 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 02:40:31PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote: >> Thanks for this patch. It looks good! >> >> My only comment on the code is that I would really like to see a >> "path_get_pin()" and "path_put_unpin()" rather than open coding: >> >>> + dget(item->ek_path.dentry); >>> + pin_insert_group(&new->ek_pin, item->ek_path.mnt, NULL); >> >> and >> >>> + dput(key->ek_path.dentry); >>> + pin_remove(&key->ek_pin); >> >> >> But the question you raise is an important one: Exactly which filesystems >> should be allowed to be unmounted? >> This is a change in behaviour - is it one that people uniformly would want? >> >> The kernel doesn't currently know which file systems were explicitly listed >> in /etc/exports, and which were found by following a 'crossmnt'. >> It could guess and allow the unmounting of anything below a 'crossmnt', but I >> wouldn't be comfortable with that - it is error prone. >> >> mountd does know what is in /etc/exports, and could tell the kernel. >> For the expkey cache, we could always use path_get_pin. >> For the export cache (where flags are available) we could use path_get >> or path_get_pin depending on some new flag. >> >> I'm not really sure it is worth it. I would rather the filesystems could >> always be unmounted. But doing that could possibly break someone's work >> flow. Maybe. >> >> Or maybe I'm seeing problems where there aren't any. >> >> Anyone else have an opinion? > > The undisputed bug here was negative cache entries preventing unmount. > So most conservative might be just to purge negative entries. I'd like this, if the cache is valid, user should not be allowed to umount the filesystem. > > Otherwise, the only guarantees I think we've really had is that we won't > allow unmount if you hold any actual state on the filesystem (NLM locks, > NFSv4 locks, opens, or delegations). Those resources hold the reference of vfsmnt. > > If a filesystem is exported but no clients hold state on it, then it's > currently mostly chance whether the unmount succeeds or not. So we're > probably free to change the behavior in this case. I'd be inclined to > allow the unmount, but haven't thought this through carefully. If client mount a nfsserver succeed without holds state, nfs server umounts the exported filesystem, client also think the filesystem is valid, but it is umounted. > > It could also be useful to have the ability to force an unmount even in > the presence of locks. That's not a safe default, but an > "allow_force_unmount" export option might be useful. > > We might similarly be able to add some way for the kernel to distinguish > explicit exports from crossmnt-found exports, but I'm not seeing the use > case for that. Agree, I don't think we needs that right now. thanks, Kinglong Mee -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Mon, 11 May 2015 21:08:47 +0800 Kinglong Mee <kinglongmee@gmail.com> wrote: > On 5/8/2015 9:47 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 02:40:31PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote: > >> Thanks for this patch. It looks good! > >> > >> My only comment on the code is that I would really like to see a > >> "path_get_pin()" and "path_put_unpin()" rather than open coding: > >> > >>> + dget(item->ek_path.dentry); > >>> + pin_insert_group(&new->ek_pin, item->ek_path.mnt, NULL); > >> > >> and > >> > >>> + dput(key->ek_path.dentry); > >>> + pin_remove(&key->ek_pin); > >> > >> > >> But the question you raise is an important one: Exactly which filesystems > >> should be allowed to be unmounted? > >> This is a change in behaviour - is it one that people uniformly would want? > >> > >> The kernel doesn't currently know which file systems were explicitly listed > >> in /etc/exports, and which were found by following a 'crossmnt'. > >> It could guess and allow the unmounting of anything below a 'crossmnt', but I > >> wouldn't be comfortable with that - it is error prone. > >> > >> mountd does know what is in /etc/exports, and could tell the kernel. > >> For the expkey cache, we could always use path_get_pin. > >> For the export cache (where flags are available) we could use path_get > >> or path_get_pin depending on some new flag. > >> > >> I'm not really sure it is worth it. I would rather the filesystems could > >> always be unmounted. But doing that could possibly break someone's work > >> flow. Maybe. > >> > >> Or maybe I'm seeing problems where there aren't any. > >> > >> Anyone else have an opinion? > > > > The undisputed bug here was negative cache entries preventing unmount. > > So most conservative might be just to purge negative entries. > > I'd like this, > if the cache is valid, user should not be allowed to umount the filesystem. > > > > > Otherwise, the only guarantees I think we've really had is that we won't > > allow unmount if you hold any actual state on the filesystem (NLM locks, > > NFSv4 locks, opens, or delegations). > > Those resources hold the reference of vfsmnt. > > > > > If a filesystem is exported but no clients hold state on it, then it's > > currently mostly chance whether the unmount succeeds or not. So we're > > probably free to change the behavior in this case. I'd be inclined to > > allow the unmount, but haven't thought this through carefully. > > If client mount a nfsserver succeed without holds state, > nfs server umounts the exported filesystem, > client also think the filesystem is valid, but it is umounted. This is no different from "exportfs -au" being run on the server, thus unexporting the filesystem and making in unavailable to the client, even though the client has it mounted. I think we need to give the server admin control of their filesystems, and assume they won't do something that they don't really want to do. > > > > > It could also be useful to have the ability to force an unmount even in > > the presence of locks. That's not a safe default, but an > > "allow_force_unmount" export option might be useful. We already have a mechanism to forcibly drop any locks by writing some magic to /proc/fs/nfsd/unlock_{ip,filesystem}. I don't think we need any more. NeilBrown
On 5/13/2015 12:25 PM, NeilBrown wrote: > On Mon, 11 May 2015 21:08:47 +0800 Kinglong Mee <kinglongmee@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 5/8/2015 9:47 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: >>> On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 02:40:31PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote: >>>> Thanks for this patch. It looks good! >>>> >>>> My only comment on the code is that I would really like to see a >>>> "path_get_pin()" and "path_put_unpin()" rather than open coding: >>>> >>>>> + dget(item->ek_path.dentry); >>>>> + pin_insert_group(&new->ek_pin, item->ek_path.mnt, NULL); >>>> >>>> and >>>> >>>>> + dput(key->ek_path.dentry); >>>>> + pin_remove(&key->ek_pin); >>>> >>>> >>>> But the question you raise is an important one: Exactly which filesystems >>>> should be allowed to be unmounted? >>>> This is a change in behaviour - is it one that people uniformly would want? >>>> >>>> The kernel doesn't currently know which file systems were explicitly listed >>>> in /etc/exports, and which were found by following a 'crossmnt'. >>>> It could guess and allow the unmounting of anything below a 'crossmnt', but I >>>> wouldn't be comfortable with that - it is error prone. >>>> >>>> mountd does know what is in /etc/exports, and could tell the kernel. >>>> For the expkey cache, we could always use path_get_pin. >>>> For the export cache (where flags are available) we could use path_get >>>> or path_get_pin depending on some new flag. >>>> >>>> I'm not really sure it is worth it. I would rather the filesystems could >>>> always be unmounted. But doing that could possibly break someone's work >>>> flow. Maybe. >>>> >>>> Or maybe I'm seeing problems where there aren't any. >>>> >>>> Anyone else have an opinion? >>> >>> The undisputed bug here was negative cache entries preventing unmount. >>> So most conservative might be just to purge negative entries. >> >> I'd like this, >> if the cache is valid, user should not be allowed to umount the filesystem. >> >>> >>> Otherwise, the only guarantees I think we've really had is that we won't >>> allow unmount if you hold any actual state on the filesystem (NLM locks, >>> NFSv4 locks, opens, or delegations). >> >> Those resources hold the reference of vfsmnt. >> >>> >>> If a filesystem is exported but no clients hold state on it, then it's >>> currently mostly chance whether the unmount succeeds or not. So we're >>> probably free to change the behavior in this case. I'd be inclined to >>> allow the unmount, but haven't thought this through carefully. >> >> If client mount a nfsserver succeed without holds state, >> nfs server umounts the exported filesystem, >> client also think the filesystem is valid, but it is umounted. > > This is no different from "exportfs -au" being run on the server, thus > unexporting the filesystem and making in unavailable to the client, even > though the client has it mounted. No, I don't think so. If user using "exportfs -au" to flush caches, I think he known what the influence of he does, but an umount of filesystem, maybe he doesn't known that contains flushing nfsd's exports cache. For an using of nfsd exports, I'd like an error of an umount, because I don't realize the exports for nfsd. I also think nfsd should allowing umount of unexported filesystem, because user has the right to umount it. > > I think we need to give the server admin control of their filesystems, and > assume they won't do something that they don't really want to do. > >>> >>> It could also be useful to have the ability to force an unmount even in >>> the presence of locks. That's not a safe default, but an >>> "allow_force_unmount" export option might be useful. > > We already have a mechanism to forcibly drop any locks by writing some magic > to /proc/fs/nfsd/unlock_{ip,filesystem}. I don't think we need any more. No, I don't agree. If there are locks (eg, LOCKs/DELEGATIONs/LAYOUTs) exist, nfsd should not allows user umounting of the filesystem, maybe client is process those files. We shouldn't clean those information for they are controlled by expire time. thanks, Kinglong Mee -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 09:08:47PM +0800, Kinglong Mee wrote: > On 5/8/2015 9:47 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 02:40:31PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote: > >> Thanks for this patch. It looks good! > >> > >> My only comment on the code is that I would really like to see a > >> "path_get_pin()" and "path_put_unpin()" rather than open coding: > >> > >>> + dget(item->ek_path.dentry); > >>> + pin_insert_group(&new->ek_pin, item->ek_path.mnt, NULL); > >> > >> and > >> > >>> + dput(key->ek_path.dentry); > >>> + pin_remove(&key->ek_pin); > >> > >> > >> But the question you raise is an important one: Exactly which filesystems > >> should be allowed to be unmounted? > >> This is a change in behaviour - is it one that people uniformly would want? > >> > >> The kernel doesn't currently know which file systems were explicitly listed > >> in /etc/exports, and which were found by following a 'crossmnt'. > >> It could guess and allow the unmounting of anything below a 'crossmnt', but I > >> wouldn't be comfortable with that - it is error prone. > >> > >> mountd does know what is in /etc/exports, and could tell the kernel. > >> For the expkey cache, we could always use path_get_pin. > >> For the export cache (where flags are available) we could use path_get > >> or path_get_pin depending on some new flag. > >> > >> I'm not really sure it is worth it. I would rather the filesystems could > >> always be unmounted. But doing that could possibly break someone's work > >> flow. Maybe. > >> > >> Or maybe I'm seeing problems where there aren't any. > >> > >> Anyone else have an opinion? > > > > The undisputed bug here was negative cache entries preventing unmount. > > So most conservative might be just to purge negative entries. > > I'd like this, > if the cache is valid, user should not be allowed to umount the filesystem. > > > > > Otherwise, the only guarantees I think we've really had is that we won't > > allow unmount if you hold any actual state on the filesystem (NLM locks, > > NFSv4 locks, opens, or delegations). > > Those resources hold the reference of vfsmnt. > > > > > If a filesystem is exported but no clients hold state on it, then it's > > currently mostly chance whether the unmount succeeds or not. So we're > > probably free to change the behavior in this case. I'd be inclined to > > allow the unmount, but haven't thought this through carefully. > > If client mount a nfsserver succeed without holds state, > nfs server umounts the exported filesystem, > client also think the filesystem is valid, but it is umounted. People do sometimes want that even when state's held. The case I've seen is migration of individual exports (or sets of exports) on shared block storage, using a floating IP--I think the sequence is: shut down the new server, move the floating IP to the new server, then unexport and unmount on the old server, then mount on the new server, export, and restart the new server. Or maybe they really just want to unmount something and don't mind client applications erroring out. --b. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 02:25:15PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote: > On Mon, 11 May 2015 21:08:47 +0800 Kinglong Mee <kinglongmee@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 5/8/2015 9:47 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > > It could also be useful to have the ability to force an unmount even in > > > the presence of locks. That's not a safe default, but an > > > "allow_force_unmount" export option might be useful. > > We already have a mechanism to forcibly drop any locks by writing some magic > to /proc/fs/nfsd/unlock_{ip,filesystem}. I don't think we need any more. Yeah, I remember thinking this sort of approach would have advantages, maybe I was wrong, I need to revisit it. The unlock_{ip,filesystem} approach requires temporarily shutting down mountd, doesn't it? --b. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Fri, 15 May 2015 17:11:34 -0400 "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org> wrote: > On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 02:25:15PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote: > > On Mon, 11 May 2015 21:08:47 +0800 Kinglong Mee <kinglongmee@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On 5/8/2015 9:47 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > > > It could also be useful to have the ability to force an unmount even in > > > > the presence of locks. That's not a safe default, but an > > > > "allow_force_unmount" export option might be useful. > > > > We already have a mechanism to forcibly drop any locks by writing some magic > > to /proc/fs/nfsd/unlock_{ip,filesystem}. I don't think we need any more. > > Yeah, I remember thinking this sort of approach would have advantages, > maybe I was wrong, I need to revisit it. > > The unlock_{ip,filesystem} approach requires temporarily shutting down > mountd, doesn't it? Not necessarily. It does require ensuring that new locks aren't suddenly taken though. I imagine an early step in the migration process is to "ifconfig down" the virtual interface with the floating ID. Then you can safely "unlock" and unmount any filesystems are that only accessed via the IP. But you are right that using the "unlock_*" interface and then unmounting is racy in a way that we are trying to make "unmount" not racy. So maybe an "allow_force_unmount" would have a place. Thanks, NeilBrown
On 5/16/2015 7:23 AM, NeilBrown wrote: > On Fri, 15 May 2015 17:11:34 -0400 "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org> > wrote: > >> On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 02:25:15PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote: >>> On Mon, 11 May 2015 21:08:47 +0800 Kinglong Mee <kinglongmee@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 5/8/2015 9:47 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: >>>>> It could also be useful to have the ability to force an unmount even in >>>>> the presence of locks. That's not a safe default, but an >>>>> "allow_force_unmount" export option might be useful. >>> >>> We already have a mechanism to forcibly drop any locks by writing some magic >>> to /proc/fs/nfsd/unlock_{ip,filesystem}. I don't think we need any more. >> >> Yeah, I remember thinking this sort of approach would have advantages, >> maybe I was wrong, I need to revisit it. >> >> The unlock_{ip,filesystem} approach requires temporarily shutting down >> mountd, doesn't it? > > Not necessarily. > It does require ensuring that new locks aren't suddenly taken though. > > I imagine an early step in the migration process is to "ifconfig down" the > virtual interface with the floating ID. Then you can safely "unlock" and > unmount any filesystems are that only accessed via the IP. > > But you are right that using the "unlock_*" interface and then unmounting is > racy in a way that we are trying to make "unmount" not racy. So maybe an > "allow_force_unmount" would have a place. No, unlock_{ip,filesystem} are used for nlmlock, doesn't support nfsv4 resources. Some other interfaces under /sys/kernel/debug/nfsd/forget_* support nfsv4 resources, without for an filesystem. It seems will be removed sometime. thanks, Kinglong Mee -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 11:02:25PM +0800, Kinglong Mee wrote: > On 5/16/2015 7:23 AM, NeilBrown wrote: > > On Fri, 15 May 2015 17:11:34 -0400 "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org> > > wrote: > > > >> On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 02:25:15PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote: > >>> On Mon, 11 May 2015 21:08:47 +0800 Kinglong Mee <kinglongmee@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On 5/8/2015 9:47 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > >>>>> It could also be useful to have the ability to force an unmount even in > >>>>> the presence of locks. That's not a safe default, but an > >>>>> "allow_force_unmount" export option might be useful. > >>> > >>> We already have a mechanism to forcibly drop any locks by writing some magic > >>> to /proc/fs/nfsd/unlock_{ip,filesystem}. I don't think we need any more. > >> > >> Yeah, I remember thinking this sort of approach would have advantages, > >> maybe I was wrong, I need to revisit it. > >> > >> The unlock_{ip,filesystem} approach requires temporarily shutting down > >> mountd, doesn't it? > > > > Not necessarily. > > It does require ensuring that new locks aren't suddenly taken though. > > > > I imagine an early step in the migration process is to "ifconfig down" the > > virtual interface with the floating ID. Then you can safely "unlock" and > > unmount any filesystems are that only accessed via the IP. > > > > But you are right that using the "unlock_*" interface and then unmounting is > > racy in a way that we are trying to make "unmount" not racy. So maybe an > > "allow_force_unmount" would have a place. > > No, unlock_{ip,filesystem} are used for nlmlock, doesn't support nfsv4 resources. I still prefer the "allow_force_unmount" option, but maybe we should also fix unlock_{ip,filesystem} to deal with nfsv4. (Though I think it's a little less well-defined there due to the possibility of trunking.) > Some other interfaces under /sys/kernel/debug/nfsd/forget_* support nfsv4 resources, > without for an filesystem. It seems will be removed sometime. We definitely don't want people to depend on those for anything other than testing clients. I don't think they'd be practical for this use. forget_client comes the closest, but you'd have to figure out the ip address of every client you want to forget. If there's a risk people might try to really use that, then maybe we should go for scarier warnings and/or remove that particular interface. --b. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/fs/nfsd/export.c b/fs/nfsd/export.c index f79521a..80f82f5 100644 --- a/fs/nfsd/export.c +++ b/fs/nfsd/export.c @@ -42,10 +42,12 @@ static void expkey_put(struct kref *ref) struct svc_expkey *key = container_of(ref, struct svc_expkey, h.ref); if (test_bit(CACHE_VALID, &key->h.flags) && - !test_bit(CACHE_NEGATIVE, &key->h.flags)) - path_put(&key->ek_path); + !test_bit(CACHE_NEGATIVE, &key->h.flags)) { + dput(key->ek_path.dentry); + pin_remove(&key->ek_pin); + } auth_domain_put(key->ek_client); - kfree(key); + kfree_rcu(key, rcu_head); } static void expkey_request(struct cache_detail *cd, @@ -120,6 +122,7 @@ static int expkey_parse(struct cache_detail *cd, char *mesg, int mlen) goto out; key.ek_client = dom; + key.cd = cd; key.ek_fsidtype = fsidtype; memcpy(key.ek_fsid, buf, len); @@ -210,6 +213,13 @@ static inline void expkey_init(struct cache_head *cnew, new->ek_fsidtype = item->ek_fsidtype; memcpy(new->ek_fsid, item->ek_fsid, sizeof(new->ek_fsid)); + new->cd = item->cd; +} + +static void expkey_pin_kill(struct fs_pin *pin) +{ + struct svc_expkey *key = container_of(pin, struct svc_expkey, ek_pin); + cache_force_expire(key->cd, &key->h); } static inline void expkey_update(struct cache_head *cnew, @@ -218,8 +228,10 @@ static inline void expkey_update(struct cache_head *cnew, struct svc_expkey *new = container_of(cnew, struct svc_expkey, h); struct svc_expkey *item = container_of(citem, struct svc_expkey, h); + init_fs_pin(&new->ek_pin, expkey_pin_kill); new->ek_path = item->ek_path; - path_get(&item->ek_path); + dget(item->ek_path.dentry); + pin_insert_group(&new->ek_pin, item->ek_path.mnt, NULL); } static struct cache_head *expkey_alloc(void) @@ -309,11 +321,13 @@ static void nfsd4_fslocs_free(struct nfsd4_fs_locations *fsloc) static void svc_export_put(struct kref *ref) { struct svc_export *exp = container_of(ref, struct svc_export, h.ref); - path_put(&exp->ex_path); + + dput(exp->ex_path.dentry); + pin_remove(&exp->ex_pin); auth_domain_put(exp->ex_client); nfsd4_fslocs_free(&exp->ex_fslocs); kfree(exp->ex_uuid); - kfree(exp); + kfree_rcu(exp, rcu_head); } static void svc_export_request(struct cache_detail *cd, @@ -694,15 +708,23 @@ static int svc_export_match(struct cache_head *a, struct cache_head *b) path_equal(&orig->ex_path, &new->ex_path); } +static void export_pin_kill(struct fs_pin *pin) +{ + struct svc_export *exp = container_of(pin, struct svc_export, ex_pin); + cache_force_expire(exp->cd, &exp->h); +} + static void svc_export_init(struct cache_head *cnew, struct cache_head *citem) { struct svc_export *new = container_of(cnew, struct svc_export, h); struct svc_export *item = container_of(citem, struct svc_export, h); + init_fs_pin(&new->ex_pin, export_pin_kill); kref_get(&item->ex_client->ref); new->ex_client = item->ex_client; new->ex_path = item->ex_path; - path_get(&item->ex_path); + dget(item->ex_path.dentry); + pin_insert_group(&new->ex_pin, item->ex_path.mnt, NULL); new->ex_fslocs.locations = NULL; new->ex_fslocs.locations_count = 0; new->ex_fslocs.migrated = 0; @@ -811,6 +833,7 @@ exp_find_key(struct cache_detail *cd, struct auth_domain *clp, int fsid_type, key.ek_client = clp; key.ek_fsidtype = fsid_type; + key.cd = cd; memcpy(key.ek_fsid, fsidv, key_len(fsid_type)); ek = svc_expkey_lookup(cd, &key); diff --git a/fs/nfsd/export.h b/fs/nfsd/export.h index 1f52bfc..1cf6ada 100644 --- a/fs/nfsd/export.h +++ b/fs/nfsd/export.h @@ -4,6 +4,7 @@ #ifndef NFSD_EXPORT_H #define NFSD_EXPORT_H +#include <linux/fs_pin.h> #include <linux/sunrpc/cache.h> #include <uapi/linux/nfsd/export.h> @@ -46,6 +47,8 @@ struct exp_flavor_info { struct svc_export { struct cache_head h; + struct cache_detail *cd; + struct auth_domain * ex_client; int ex_flags; struct path ex_path; @@ -58,7 +61,9 @@ struct svc_export { struct exp_flavor_info ex_flavors[MAX_SECINFO_LIST]; enum pnfs_layouttype ex_layout_type; struct nfsd4_deviceid_map *ex_devid_map; - struct cache_detail *cd; + + struct fs_pin ex_pin; + struct rcu_head rcu_head; }; /* an "export key" (expkey) maps a filehandlefragement to an @@ -67,12 +72,15 @@ struct svc_export { */ struct svc_expkey { struct cache_head h; + struct cache_detail *cd; struct auth_domain * ek_client; int ek_fsidtype; u32 ek_fsid[6]; struct path ek_path; + struct fs_pin ek_pin; + struct rcu_head rcu_head; }; #define EX_ISSYNC(exp) (!((exp)->ex_flags & NFSEXP_ASYNC))
If there are some mount points(not exported for nfs) under pseudo root, after client's operation of those entry under the root, anyone *can't* unmount those mount points until export cache expired. # cat /etc/exports /nfs/xfs *(rw,insecure,no_subtree_check,no_root_squash) /nfs/pnfs *(rw,insecure,no_subtree_check,no_root_squash) # ll /nfs/ total 0 drwxr-xr-x. 3 root root 84 Apr 21 22:27 pnfs drwxr-xr-x. 3 root root 84 Apr 21 22:27 test drwxr-xr-x. 2 root root 6 Apr 20 22:01 xfs # mount /dev/sde /nfs/test # df Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on ...... /dev/sdd 1038336 32944 1005392 4% /nfs/pnfs /dev/sdc 10475520 32928 10442592 1% /nfs/xfs /dev/sde 999320 1284 929224 1% /nfs/test # mount -t nfs 127.0.0.1:/nfs/ /mnt # ll /mnt/*/ /mnt/pnfs/: total 0 -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 0 Apr 21 22:23 attr drwxr-xr-x. 2 root root 6 Apr 21 22:19 tmp /mnt/xfs/: total 0 # umount /nfs/test/ umount: /nfs/test/: target is busy (In some cases useful info about processes that use the device is found by lsof(8) or fuser(1).) I don't think that's user expect, they want umount /nfs/test/. It's caused by exports cache of nfsd holds the reference of the path (here is /nfs/test/), so, it can't be umounted. The patch site using fs_pin instead of mntget for export cache, user at nfs server can unmount any mount points includes exported for nfs. Maybe, only umounted for unexported mount points is better? Signed-off-by: Kinglong Mee <kinglongmee@gmail.com> --- fs/nfsd/export.c | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------- fs/nfsd/export.h | 10 +++++++++- 2 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)