From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>
Subject: Re: fsnotify path hooks
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2021 10:35:56 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210406083556.GA19407@quack2.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAOQ4uxjHFkRVTY5iyTSpb0R5R6j-j=8+Htpu2hgMAz9MTci-HQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu 01-04-21 17:18:05, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > > > > Also I'm somewhat uneasy that it is random (from
> > > > > userspace POV) when path event is generated and when not (at least that's
> > > > > my impression from the patch - maybe I'm wrong). How difficult would it be
> > > > > to get rid of it? I mean what if we just moved say fsnotify_create() call
> > > > > wholly up the stack? It would mean more explicit calls to fsnotify_create()
> > > > > from filesystems - as far as I'm looking nfsd, overlayfs, cachefiles,
> > > > > ecryptfs. But that would seem to be manageable. Also, to maintain sanity,
> > > >
> > > > 1. I don't think we can do that for all the fsnotify_create() hooks, such as
> > > > debugfs for example
> > > > 2. It is useless to pass the mount from overlayfs to fsnotify, its a private
> > > > mount that users cannot set a mark on anyway and Christian has
> > > > promised to propose the same change for cachefiles and ecryptfs,
> > > > so I think it's not worth the churn in those call sites
> > > > 3. I am uneasy with removing the fsnotify hooks from vfs helpers and
> > > > trusting that new callers of vfs_create() will remember to add the high
> > > > level hooks, so I prefer the existing behavior remains for such callers
> > > >
> > >
> > > So I read your proposal the wrong way.
> > > You meant move fsnotify_create() up *without* passing mount context
> > > from overlayfs and friends.
> >
> > Well, I was thinking that we could find appropriate mount context for
> > overlayfs or ecryptfs (which just shows how little I know about these
> > filesystems ;) I didn't think of e.g. debugfs. Anyway, if we can make
> > mountpoint marks work for directory events at least for most filesystems, I
> > think that is OK as well. However it would be then needed to detect whether
> > a given filesystem actually supports mount marks for dir events and if not,
> > report error from fanotify_mark() instead of silently not generating
> > events.
> >
>
> It's not about "filesystems that support mount marks".
> mount marks will work perfectly well on overlayfs.
>
> The thing is if you place a mount mark on the underlying store of
> overlayfs (say xfs) and then files are created/deleted by the
> overlayfs driver (in xfs) you wont get any events, because
> overlayfs uses a private mount clone to perform underlying operations.
OK, understood.
> So while we CAN get the overlayfs underlying layer mount context
> it is irrelevant because no user can setup a mount mark on that
> private mount, so no need to bother calling the path hooks.
>
> This is not the case with nfsd IMO.
> With nfsd, when "exporting" a path to clients, nfsd is really exporting
> a specific mount (and keeping that mount busy too).
> It can even export whole mount topologies.
>
> But then again, getting the mount context in every nfsd operation
> is easy, there is an export context to client requests and the export
> context has the exported path.
>
> Therefore, nfsd is my only user using the vfs helpers that is expected
> to call the fsnotify path hooks (other than syscalls).
I agree.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-04-06 8:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-03-28 15:56 [RFC][PATCH] fanotify: allow setting FAN_CREATE in mount mark mask Amir Goldstein
2021-03-30 7:31 ` Christian Brauner
2021-03-30 9:31 ` Amir Goldstein
2021-03-30 16:24 ` Amir Goldstein
2021-03-31 10:08 ` Christian Brauner
2021-03-31 10:57 ` Amir Goldstein
2021-04-08 11:44 ` open_by_handle_at() in userns Amir Goldstein
2021-04-08 12:55 ` Christian Brauner
2021-04-08 14:15 ` J. Bruce Fields
2021-04-08 15:54 ` Amir Goldstein
2021-04-08 16:08 ` J. Bruce Fields
2021-04-08 16:48 ` Frank Filz
2021-04-08 15:34 ` Amir Goldstein
2021-04-08 15:41 ` Christian Brauner
2021-03-30 12:12 ` [RFC][PATCH] fanotify: allow setting FAN_CREATE in mount mark mask Christian Brauner
2021-03-30 12:33 ` Amir Goldstein
2021-03-30 12:53 ` Christian Brauner
2021-03-30 12:55 ` Christian Brauner
2021-03-30 13:54 ` Amir Goldstein
2021-03-30 14:17 ` Christian Brauner
2021-03-30 14:56 ` Amir Goldstein
2021-03-31 9:46 ` Christian Brauner
2021-03-31 11:29 ` Amir Goldstein
2021-03-31 12:17 ` Christian Brauner
2021-03-31 12:59 ` Amir Goldstein
2021-03-31 12:54 ` Jan Kara
2021-03-31 14:06 ` Amir Goldstein
2021-03-31 20:59 ` fsnotify path hooks Amir Goldstein
2021-04-01 10:29 ` Jan Kara
2021-04-01 14:18 ` Amir Goldstein
2021-04-02 8:20 ` Amir Goldstein
2021-04-06 8:35 ` Jan Kara [this message]
2021-03-31 13:06 ` [RFC][PATCH] fanotify: allow setting FAN_CREATE in mount mark mask J. Bruce Fields
2021-03-30 12:20 ` Amir Goldstein
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20210406083556.GA19407@quack2.suse.cz \
--to=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=amir73il@gmail.com \
--cc=bfields@fieldses.org \
--cc=christian.brauner@ubuntu.com \
--cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=miklos@szeredi.hu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).