linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Kirill Smelkov <kirr@nexedi.com>
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
Cc: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@redhat.com>,
	<linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	fuse-devel <fuse-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>,
	Han-Wen Nienhuys <hanwen@google.com>,
	Jakob Unterwurzacher <jakobunt@gmail.com>,
	stable <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RESEND, PATCH v2] fuse: Don't drop NOTIFY_REPLY if we promised it
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2019 09:34:28 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190307093421.GA4620@deco.navytux.spb.ru> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190228114757.GA2796@deco.navytux.spb.ru>

On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 02:47:57PM +0300, Kirill Smelkov wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 09:10:15AM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 9:39 PM Kirill Smelkov <kirr@nexedi.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I more or less agree with this statement. However can we please make the
> > > breakage to be explicitly visible with an error instead of exhibiting it
> > > via harder to debug stucks/deadlocks? For example sys_read < max_write
> > > -> error instead of getting stuck. And if notify_retrieve requests
> > > buffer larger than max_write -> error or cut to max_write, but don't
> > > return OK when we know we will never send what was requested to
> > > filesystem even if it uses max_write sized reads. What is the point of
> > > breaking in hard to diagnose way when we can make the breakage showing
> > > itself explicitly? Would a patch for such behaviour accepted?
> >
> > Sure, if it's only adds a couple of lines.   Adding more than say ten
> > lines for such a non-bug fix is definitely excessive.
>
> Ok, thanks. Please consider applying the following patch. (It's a bit
> pity to hear the problem is not considered to be a bug, but anyway).
>
> I will also send the second patch as another mail, since I could not
> made `git am --scissors` to apply several patched extracted from one
> mail successfully.

Ping. Miklos, is there anything wrong with this patch and its
second counterpart?

Thank beforehand for feedback,
Kirill


> ---- 8< ----
> From: Kirill Smelkov <kirr@nexedi.com>
> Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2019 13:06:18 +0300
> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] fuse: retrieve: cap requested size to negotiated
>  max_write
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>
> FUSE filesystem server and kernel client negotiate during initialization
> phase, what should be the maximum write size the client will ever issue.
> Correspondingly the filesystem server then queues sys_read calls to read
> requests with buffer capacity large enough to carry request header
> + that max_write bytes. A filesystem server is free to set its max_write
> in anywhere in the range between [1·page, fc->max_pages·page]. In
> particular go-fuse[2] sets max_write by default as 64K, wheres default
> fc->max_pages corresponds to 128K. Libfuse also allows users to
> configure max_write, but by default presets it to possible maximum.
>
> If max_write is < fc->max_pages·page, and in NOTIFY_RETRIEVE handler we
> allow to retrieve more than max_write bytes, corresponding prepared
> NOTIFY_REPLY will be thrown away by fuse_dev_do_read, because the
> filesystem server, in full correspondence with server/client contract,
> will be only queuing sys_read with ~max_write buffer capacity, and
> fuse_dev_do_read throws away requests that cannot fit into server
> request buffer. In turn the filesystem server could get stuck waiting
> indefinitely for NOTIFY_REPLY since NOTIFY_RETRIEVE handler returned OK
> which is understood by clients as that NOTIFY_REPLY was queued and will
> be sent back.
>
> -> Cap requested size to negotiate max_write to avoid the problem.
> This aligns with the way NOTIFY_RETRIEVE handler works, which already
> unconditionally caps requested retrieve size to fuse_conn->max_pages.
> This way it should not hurt NOTIFY_RETRIEVE semantic if we return less
> data than was originally requested.
>
> Please see [1] for context where the problem of stuck filesystem was hit
> for real, how the situation was traced and for more involving patch that
> did not make it into the tree.
>
> [1] https://marc.info/?l=linux-fsdevel&m=155057023600853&w=2
> [2] https://github.com/hanwen/go-fuse
>
> Signed-off-by: Kirill Smelkov <kirr@nexedi.com>
> Cc: Han-Wen Nienhuys <hanwen@google.com>
> Cc: Jakob Unterwurzacher <jakobunt@gmail.com>
> Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # v2.6.36+
> ---
>  fs/fuse/dev.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/fuse/dev.c b/fs/fuse/dev.c
> index 8a63e52785e9..38e94bc43053 100644
> --- a/fs/fuse/dev.c
> +++ b/fs/fuse/dev.c
> @@ -1749,7 +1749,7 @@ static int fuse_retrieve(struct fuse_conn *fc, struct inode *inode,
>  	offset = outarg->offset & ~PAGE_MASK;
>  	file_size = i_size_read(inode);
>
> -	num = outarg->size;
> +	num = min(outarg->size, fc->max_write);
>  	if (outarg->offset > file_size)
>  		num = 0;
>  	else if (outarg->offset + num > file_size)
> --
> 2.21.0.352.gf09ad66450


  parent reply	other threads:[~2019-03-07  9:49 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-02-19  9:42 [RESEND, PATCH v2] fuse: Don't drop NOTIFY_REPLY if we promised it Kirill Smelkov
2019-02-26 15:14 ` Miklos Szeredi
2019-02-27 20:02   ` Kirill Smelkov
2019-02-27 20:26     ` Miklos Szeredi
2019-02-27 20:39       ` Kirill Smelkov
2019-02-28  8:10         ` Miklos Szeredi
2019-02-28 11:48           ` Kirill Smelkov
2019-02-28 11:50             ` [PATCH 2/2] fuse: require /dev/fuse reads to have enough buffer capacity as negotiated Kirill Smelkov
2019-03-07  9:34             ` Kirill Smelkov [this message]
2019-03-14 10:45               ` [RESEND3, PATCH 0/2] fuse: don't stuck clients on retrieve_notify with size > max_write Kirill Smelkov
2019-03-14 10:46                 ` [PATCH 1/2] fuse: retrieve: cap requested size to negotiated max_write Kirill Smelkov
2019-03-14 10:46                 ` [PATCH 2/2] fuse: require /dev/fuse reads to have enough buffer capacity as negotiated Kirill Smelkov

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=20190307093421.GA4620@deco.navytux.spb.ru \
    --to=kirr@nexedi.com \
    --cc=fuse-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
    --cc=hanwen@google.com \
    --cc=jakobunt@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=miklos@szeredi.hu \
    --cc=mszeredi@redhat.com \
    --cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
    /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).