From patchwork Thu Jul 17 11:22:41 2014 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Jeff Layton X-Patchwork-Id: 4574591 Return-Path: X-Original-To: patchwork-linux-nfs@patchwork.kernel.org Delivered-To: patchwork-parsemail@patchwork2.web.kernel.org Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.19.201]) by patchwork2.web.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EA30C0515 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 11:23:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.kernel.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFB0B2018A for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 11:22:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8363320160 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 11:22:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756918AbaGQLWy (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Jul 2014 07:22:54 -0400 Received: from mail-qc0-f172.google.com ([209.85.216.172]:63917 "EHLO mail-qc0-f172.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756881AbaGQLWv (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Jul 2014 07:22:51 -0400 Received: by mail-qc0-f172.google.com with SMTP id l6so1905858qcy.17 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 04:22:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:date:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-type; bh=IUx2dkeF4JHhV10vhpZ7uz/KsQYO9V9e1qgoS8awONg=; b=UgjgwpajbHIAStNs7e9qmtrwQtRK4vkTpavG0jvbs5mgD4wgi8J8+zJH4tqxGCfwKI oNNbWI3f8dM6gKSi+1HeE/0mXIyToGltVieeKe3JK8B9l0zCae2+80CR3Stz4IRv/U8R BjDE8LSE1TEW1upppPcW88CN2v6C3wQtkqhV8K+bGEO80wV394X2QfVwznERK7/uj6GZ IX9RScLANwrUG6TEyiYOBkjiKIiEsVVCJ8Yz2wnY3QUwcwStydFmzwup31p0gJDkezMS lBcy/Ts4sVNxEOZ4VDJS+2wCGBKBWAbPXpNZbdFYiB2mfyWpJJC09PPYKN+p4ZgnrQfE T3Rw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkOZ5sp9o9ykz3o8zTT2flbrtA1BomGSA1yCM+17VHR1gKOjE3es6eo9JczXrwRVB21muwq X-Received: by 10.140.100.233 with SMTP id s96mr31929700qge.92.1405596170272; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 04:22:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tlielax.poochiereds.net ([2001:470:8:d63:3a60:77ff:fe93:a95d]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id l8sm4049374qac.2.2014.07.17.04.22.49 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 17 Jul 2014 04:22:50 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Layton X-Google-Original-From: Jeff Layton Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 07:22:41 -0400 To: NeilBrown Cc: Jeff Layton , Trond Myklebust , Alexander Viro , NFS , Miklos Szeredi , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] NFS: nfs4_lookup_revalidate need to report STALE inodes. Message-ID: <20140717072241.2c1549a3@tlielax.poochiereds.net> In-Reply-To: <20140717115024.1eb7433d@notabene.brown> References: <20140714151405.2fa06dd7@notabene.brown> <20140714081455.69f55224@tlielax.poochiereds.net> <20140714223513.47807c98@notabene.brown> <20140714090028.6f04fd2c@tlielax.poochiereds.net> <20140715085727.6fa12272@notabene.brown> <20140714194738.5aafaf25@tlielax.poochiereds.net> <20140717115024.1eb7433d@notabene.brown> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.10.1 (GTK+ 2.24.22; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD, T_TVD_MIME_EPI, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on mail.kernel.org X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP On Thu, 17 Jul 2014 11:50:24 +1000 NeilBrown wrote: > On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 19:47:38 -0400 Jeff Layton > wrote: > > > On Tue, 15 Jul 2014 08:57:27 +1000 > > NeilBrown wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 09:00:28 -0400 Jeff Layton > > > wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 22:35:13 +1000 > > > > NeilBrown wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 08:14:55 -0400 Jeff Layton > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 15:14:05 +1000 > > > > > > NeilBrown wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If an 'open' of a file in an NFSv4 filesystem finds that the dentry is > > > > > > > in cache, but the inode is stale (on the server), the dentry will not > > > > > > > be re-validated immediately and may cause ESTALE to be returned to > > > > > > > user-space. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For a non-create 'open', do_last() calls lookup_fast() and on success > > > > > > > will eventually call may_open() which calls into nfs_permission(). > > > > > > > If nfs_permission() makes the ACCESS call to the server it will get > > > > > > > NFS4ERR_STALE, resulting in ESTALE from may_open() and thence from > > > > > > > do_last(). > > > > > > > The retry-on-ESTALE in filename_lookup() will repeat exactly the same > > > > > > > process because nothing in this path will invalidate the dentry due to > > > > > > > the inode being stale, so the ESTALE will be returned. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > lookup_fast() calls ->d_revalidate(), but for an OPEN on an NFSv4 > > > > > > > filesystem, that will succeed for regular files: > > > > > > > /* Let f_op->open() actually open (and revalidate) the file */ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately in the case of a STALE inode, f_op->open() never gets > > > > > > > called. If we teach nfs4_lookup_revalidate() to report a failure on > > > > > > > NFS_STALE() inodes, then the dentry will be invalidated and a full > > > > > > > lookup will be attempted. The ESTALE errors go away. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > While I think this fix is correct, I'm not convinced that it is > > > > > > > sufficient, particularly if lookupcache=none. > > > > > > > The current code will fail an "open" is nfs_permission() fails, > > > > > > > without having performed a LOOKUP. i.e. it will use the cache. > > > > > > > nfs_lookup_revalidate will force a lookup before the permission check > > > > > > > if NFS_MOUNT_LOOKUP_CACHE_NONE, but nfs4_lookup_revalidate will not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This patch should make the code fall through to nfs_lookup_revalidate, > > > > > > which would then force the lookup, right? > > > > > > > > > > Yes ... though maybe that's not what I really want to do. I really wanted to > > > > > just return '0', though I would need to check that is right in all cases. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, I'm a little unclear... > > > > > > > > > > > > Why would may_open fail with ESTALE after the v4 OPEN succeeds? The > > > > > > OPEN should be returning a filehandle and attributes for the inode > > > > > > actually opened. It seems like we ought to be doing any permission > > > > > > checks vs. that inode, not anything we had in cache. Presumably the > > > > > > server is then holding it open so it shouldn't be stale. > > > > > > > > > > may_open is called *before* and v4 OPEN. > > > > > > > > > > In do_last, if the inode is already in cache, then > > > > > lookup_fast is called, which calls d_revalidate > > > > > then may_open (calls ->permission) > > > > > then finish_open which calls f_op->open > > > > > > > > > > Yes, we should be doing permission checking against whatever 'open' finds. > > > > > But the VFS is structured to the the permission check after d_revalidate and > > > > > before ->open. So maybe d_revalidate needs to do the NFS open?? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok, I see. Ugh, having the revalidate do the open sounds...messy. > > > > > > Having the VFS call into the file system in dribs and drabs, rather than just > > > asking the filesystem to "open" and letting it call back to VFS libraries > > > for name lookup etc it what is really messy (IMO). > > > > > > So yes - definite mess. Not entirely sure where the mess is. > > > > > > > Yeah, that might have been cleaner overall. I'm not sure how we can get > > there from where the code is today though... > > > > > > > > > > A simpler fix might be to fix it so that an -ESTALE return from > > > > may_open triggers a retry. Something like this maybe (probably > > > > whitespace damaged, so just for discussion purposes): > > > > > > Nice idea but doesn't work. > > > We get back to retry_lookup and call lookup_open(). > > > lookup_dcache calls d_revalidate which reports that everything is fine, so it > > > tells lookup_open which jumps to out_no_open and does nothing useful. > > > So we end up in may_open() again which returns ESTALE again but now we've > > > used up all our extra lives... > > > > > > > Ahh right, so you'd probably need to pair that with the patch you > > already have. Regardless, it seems like getting back an ESTALE from > > may_open should trigger a retry rather than just erroring out. > > > > > > > > One thing I noticed while exploring this is that do_last calls "may_open" > > > *before* finish_open() while atomic_open() calls "may_open" *after* > > > finish_open() (which it calls by virtual of the fact that all ->atomic_open > > > methods call finish_open()). > > > > > > I was very tempted to just move the 'may_open' call in 'do_last' to after the > > > 'finish_open' call. That fixed the problem, but I'm not sure it is "right". > > > > > > I think the real core messiness here is that permission checking should be > > > neither before nor after finish_open, but should be an integral part of > > > finish_open with the filesystem doing the permission check in f_op->open(). > > > > > > I'm currently thinking this is the best patch for now: > > > > > > diff --git a/fs/nfs/dir.c b/fs/nfs/dir.c > > > index 4f7414afca27..5c40cfd3ae29 100644 > > > --- a/fs/nfs/dir.c > > > +++ b/fs/nfs/dir.c > > > @@ -1563,9 +1563,10 @@ static int nfs4_lookup_revalidate(struct dentry *dentry, unsigned int flags) > > > /* We cannot do exclusive creation on a positive dentry */ > > > if (flags & LOOKUP_EXCL) > > > goto no_open_dput; > > > > > > - /* Let f_op->open() actually open (and revalidate) the file */ > > > - ret = 1; > > > + if (!NFS_STALE(inode)) > > > + /* Let f_op->open() actually open (and revalidate) the file */ > > > + ret = 1; > > > > > > out: > > > dput(parent); > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > NeilBrown > > > > > > > That looks fine too, but I think you probably will also want to pair it > > with making may_open retry the open on an ESTALE return. > > > > The problem with the above check alone is that it's only going to fire > > if you previously found the inode to be stale. It may be stale on the > > server, but the client doesn't realize it yet, or could go stale after > > this check and before the ACCESS call. In that case, you'll still end > > up getting back an ESTALE once you hit may_open (unless I'm missing > > something) and that won't trigger a reattempt either. > > I must admit to being a bit confused by your position here. > > You are the one who introduced the high-level retry-on-ESTALE functionality > into namei.c. So you presumably know that an ESTALE will already be > retried. Yet you are suggesting to that we add another retry here?? > > The way I understanding it, ESTALE should only be retried if it was a cached > inode that was found to be STALE. When that happens, the dentry needs to be > invalidated and then the whole path retried again from the top with > LOOKUP_REVAL. This time we won't trust anything that is cached so any ESTALE > we find is a real ESTALE that must be returned to the caller. > > From this perspective, the problem is either something is seeing a STALE > inode in the first pass and not invalidating the dentry, or that something is > not revalidating the dentry on the second pass despite LOOKUP_REVAL being set. > I'm assuming that nfs4_look_revalidate should be invalidating the dentry on > the first pass (by returning 0). Other fixes might be possible, but further > retries should be pointless - we already have the required retry in place > thanks to you! > > Thanks, > NeilBrown (cc'ing Miklos) You're totally correct. I had forgotten that we do retries on ESTALE at a higher level. I got confused by the EOPENSTALE handling there after finish_open. So, on your patch: Acked-by: Jeff Layton That said, it does sort of bring up an unrelated question: What's so special about an EOPENSTALE return from finish_open that we need to handle retries in do_last? It seems like we could get rid of the stale_open label and just let do_filp_open handle it like we would an ESTALE return from any other spot in the function. Just for giggles, here's an RFC patch. It builds but I haven't tested it. It might also be possible to do some cleanup around saved_parent with this. Thoughts? -------------------------[snip]------------------- [PATCH] vfs: don't handle EOPENSTALE retries in do_last We already handle ESTALE retries at higher levels. Retrying the lookup and open in do_last is somewhat redundant. Remove the logic that for that from do_last and just let the upper layers handle it. Cc: Miklos Szeredi Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton --- fs/namei.c | 26 +------------------------- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 25 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/namei.c b/fs/namei.c index 985c6f368485..34c6d008d0e5 100644 --- a/fs/namei.c +++ b/fs/namei.c @@ -2882,7 +2882,6 @@ static int do_last(struct nameidata *nd, struct path *path, struct inode *inode; bool symlink_ok = false; struct path save_parent = { .dentry = NULL, .mnt = NULL }; - bool retried = false; int error; nd->flags &= ~LOOKUP_PARENT; @@ -2927,7 +2926,6 @@ static int do_last(struct nameidata *nd, struct path *path, goto out; } -retry_lookup: if (op->open_flag & (O_CREAT | O_TRUNC | O_WRONLY | O_RDWR)) { error = mnt_want_write(nd->path.mnt); if (!error) @@ -3017,7 +3015,6 @@ finish_lookup: save_parent.dentry = nd->path.dentry; save_parent.mnt = mntget(path->mnt); nd->path.dentry = path->dentry; - } nd->inode = inode; /* Why this, you ask? _Now_ we might have grown LOOKUP_JUMPED... */ @@ -3049,11 +3046,8 @@ finish_open_created: goto out; file->f_path.mnt = nd->path.mnt; error = finish_open(file, nd->path.dentry, NULL, opened); - if (error) { - if (error == -EOPENSTALE) - goto stale_open; + if (error) goto out; - } opened: error = open_check_o_direct(file); if (error) @@ -3080,24 +3074,6 @@ exit_dput: exit_fput: fput(file); goto out; - -stale_open: - /* If no saved parent or already retried then can't retry */ - if (!save_parent.dentry || retried) - goto out; - - BUG_ON(save_parent.dentry != dir); - path_put(&nd->path); - nd->path = save_parent; - nd->inode = dir->d_inode; - save_parent.mnt = NULL; - save_parent.dentry = NULL; - if (got_write) { - mnt_drop_write(nd->path.mnt); - got_write = false; - } - retried = true; - goto retry_lookup; } static int do_tmpfile(int dfd, struct filename *pathname,