From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96BECC433F5 for ; Fri, 17 Sep 2021 10:23:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F3FD60E08 for ; Fri, 17 Sep 2021 10:23:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S242557AbhIQKYl (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Sep 2021 06:24:41 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:36174 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S242513AbhIQKYl (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Sep 2021 06:24:41 -0400 Received: from mail-io1-xd31.google.com (mail-io1-xd31.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d31]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C61EEC061574; Fri, 17 Sep 2021 03:23:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io1-xd31.google.com with SMTP id y18so11624137ioc.1; Fri, 17 Sep 2021 03:23:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=5I8500HOfJqf+DHPfMAaFXDmAkB73OxLlGzUcUBNbuc=; b=ByYtUEl1WYBhq6zB++Cd54KeJCa4AUB0r9hGqeJZ7EhgXXQdwInudDgDUK4mfdzm5E m8bMF1/Pe35Tt+FuHGCFBiKyo86V6AXQDLNYcp6coYnpevfsMGFQwQaxvQYoKNuI3jug Iv91N/Zz/ks3Es6ausNVzudbRmFnBeGPZVKZ6BeE8ObPlUDltIcCE/B1jgDP+LlUlQ3p rbHDQtfEuFfWwXs5Jd7xYPaQCteKN2OJJTZwcoldNRRhRR1ziXgrCWv9tRHR8PKFPUu7 eWr4On707UoOuhzkEVokRm0ICfmFjXGazw66ABaFHUPcPQ4OdUGA8+PyZN0j7Y3+cXnk GqTw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=5I8500HOfJqf+DHPfMAaFXDmAkB73OxLlGzUcUBNbuc=; b=D+DJzgSVFYZZ8o5yjEbQVQUE6vM1pp9TI0upWAn8IExim8pdelGHxXSDSkxAr7QrmZ 4oNLux3sS37X3xTmK3VtZIR3zPV/FyVxd8ebNfb12r+V22EZThFxaCb5YUZLnooW+sht 93W5XdMKgmFvtv9gFivq1SwngtqViAvvuaLl3gbzEztD0YMMhyYYS5lWFRGGZz6zr9Aq bPUZWhxGx+MNFjwA9ipMHlNIepgYxRe0QDENt0wRKxpfqrzfbUMuBIE4L//k4wRVvKZ0 Z0UG6/l5LFIIWz/2xI3LmQ25lHhg1Lb3/VLECsdfYmGy2ja2vY1z5pBioM0befHlfEPF RDZQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532Orsoo1bvnpM+Nru7G0nnZZlKV+Z6NSmsafebt7uIMNK2/ROQR LW8iqzWhJLSHnfsTLNismSL035Djl1LOZHyfvro= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxLL9zUfQkSkZTQYnjTJGmrSzuaxOJ6qcfrFEl3P1HyMYA9URTqrHImGmokgpB/fHOUJ9HwT+uHHHAjpcwymbc= X-Received: by 2002:a5e:dc02:: with SMTP id b2mr8058153iok.197.1631874199220; Fri, 17 Sep 2021 03:23:19 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210916013916.GD34899@magnolia> <20210917083043.GA6547@quack2.suse.cz> <20210917083608.GB6547@quack2.suse.cz> <20210917093838.GC6547@quack2.suse.cz> In-Reply-To: <20210917093838.GC6547@quack2.suse.cz> From: Amir Goldstein Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2021 13:23:08 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Shameless plug for the FS Track at LPC next week! To: Jan Kara Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" , xfs , linux-ext4 , linux-btrfs , linux-fsdevel , Christian Brauner Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 12:38 PM Jan Kara wrote: > > On Fri 17-09-21 10:36:08, Jan Kara wrote: > > Let me also post Amir's thoughts on this from a private thread: > > And now I'm actually replying to Amir :-p > > > On Fri 17-09-21 10:30:43, Jan Kara wrote: > > > We did a small update to the schedule: > > > > > > > Christian Brauner will run the second session, discussing what idmapped > > > > filesystem mounts are for and the current status of supporting more > > > > filesystems. > > > > > > We have extended this session as we'd like to discuss and get some feedback > > > from users about project quotas and project ids: > > > > > > Project quotas were originally mostly a collaborative feature and later got > > > used by some container runtimes to implement limitation of used space on a > > > filesystem shared by multiple containers. As a result current semantics of > > > project quotas are somewhat surprising and handling of project ids is not > > > consistent among filesystems. The main two contending points are: > > > > > > 1) Currently the inode owner can set project id of the inode to any > > > arbitrary number if he is in init_user_ns. It cannot change project id at > > > all in other user namespaces. > > > > > > 2) Should project IDs be mapped in user namespaces or not? User namespace > > > code does implement the mapping, VFS quota code maps project ids when using > > > them. However e.g. XFS does not map project IDs in its calls setting them > > > in the inode. Among other things this results in some funny errors if you > > > set project ID to (unsigned)-1. > > > > > > In the session we'd like to get feedback how project quotas / ids get used > > > / could be used so that we can define the common semantics and make the > > > code consistently follow these rules. > > > > I think that legacy projid semantics might not be a perfect fit for > > container isolation requirements. I added project quota support to docker > > at the time because it was handy and it did the job of limiting and > > querying disk usage of containers with an overlayfs storage driver. > > > > With btrfs storage driver, subvolumes are used to create that isolation. > > The TREE_ID proposal [1] got me thinking that it is not so hard to > > implement "tree id" as an extention or in addition to project id. > > > > The semantics of "tree id" would be: > > 1. tree id is a quota entity accounting inodes and blocks > > 2. tree id can be changed only on an empty directory > > 3. tree id can be set to TID only if quota inode usage of TID is 0 > > 4. tree id is always inherited from parent > > 5. No rename() or link() across tree id (clone should be possible) > > > > AFAIK btrfs subvol meets all the requirements of "tree id". > > > > Implementing tree id in ext4/xfs could be done by adding a new field to > > inode on-disk format and a new quota entity to quota on-disk format and > > quotatools. > > > > An alternative simpler way is to repurpose project id and project quota: > > * Add filesystem feature projid-is-treeid > > * The feature can be enabled on fresh mkfs or after fsck verifies "tree id" > > rules are followed for all usage of projid > > * Once the feature is enabled, filesystem enforces the new semantics > > about setting projid and projid_inherit > > > > This might be a good option if there is little intersection between > > systems that need to use the old project semantics and systems > > that would rather have the tree id semantics. > > Yes, I actually think that having both tree-id and project-id on a > filesystem would be too confusing. And I'm not aware of realistic usecases. > I've heard only of people wanting current semantics (although these we more > of the kind: "sometime in the past people used the feature like this") and > the people complaining current semantics is not useful for them. This was > discussed e.g. in ext4 list [2]. > > > I think that with the "tree id" semantics, the user_ns/idmapped > > questions become easier to answer. > > Allocating tree id ranges per userns to avoid exhausting the tree id > > namespace is a very similar problem to allocating uids per userns. > > It still depends how exactly tree ids get used - if you want to use them to > limit space usage of a container, you still have to forbid changing of tree > ids inside the container, don't you? > Yes. This is where my view of userns becomes hazy (so pulling Christain into the discussion), but in general I think that this use case would be similar to the concept of single uid container - the range of allowed tree ids that is allocated for the container in that case is a single tree id. I understand that the next question would be about nesting subtree quotas and I don't have a good answer to that question. Are btrfs subvolume nested w.r.t. capacity limit? I don't think that they are. Thanks, Amir.