linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
To: Kirill Smelkov <kirr@nexedi.com>
Cc: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@redhat.com>,
	Han-Wen Nienhuys <hanwen@google.com>,
	Jakob Unterwurzacher <jakobunt@gmail.com>,
	Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	fuse-devel <fuse-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [RESEND4, PATCH 2/2] fuse: require /dev/fuse reads to have enough buffer capacity as negotiated
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2019 12:48:36 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJfpegurLOLoNd9p2avcXPhSvP+ux8V+A=ghBySSpn0pX_Afpg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d74b17b9d33c3dcc7a1f2fa2914fb3c4e7cda127.1553680185.git.kirr@nexedi.com>

On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 11:44 AM Kirill Smelkov <kirr@nexedi.com> wrote:
>
> A FUSE filesystem server queues /dev/fuse sys_read calls to get
> filesystem requests to handle. It does not know in advance what would be
> that request as it can be anything that client issues - LOOKUP, READ,
> WRITE, ... Many requests are short and retrieve data from the
> filesystem. However WRITE and NOTIFY_REPLY write data into filesystem.
>
> Before getting into operation phase, FUSE filesystem server and kernel
> client negotiate what should be the maximum write size the client will
> ever issue. After negotiation the contract in between server/client is
> that the filesystem server then should queue /dev/fuse sys_read calls with
> enough buffer capacity to receive any client request - WRITE in
> particular, while FUSE client should not, in particular, send WRITE
> requests with > negotiated max_write payload. FUSE client in kernel and
> libfuse historically reserve 4K for request header. This way the
> contract is that filesystem server should queue sys_reads with
> 4K+max_write buffer.
>
> If the filesystem server does not follow this contract, what can happen
> is that fuse_dev_do_read will see that request size is > buffer size,
> and then it will return EIO to client who issued the request but won't
> indicate in any way that there is a problem to filesystem server.
> This can be hard to diagnose because for some requests, e.g. for
> NOTIFY_REPLY which mimics WRITE, there is no client thread that is
> waiting for request completion and that EIO goes nowhere, while on
> filesystem server side things look like the kernel is not replying back
> after successful NOTIFY_RETRIEVE request made by the server.
>
> -> We can make the problem easy to diagnose if we indicate via error
> return to filesystem server when it is violating the contract.
> This should not practically cause problems because if a filesystem
> server is using shorter buffer, writes to it were already very likely to
> cause EIO, and if the filesystem is read-only it should be too following
> 8K minimum buffer size (= either FUSE_MIN_READ_BUFFER, see 1d3d752b47,
> or = 4K + min(max_write)=4k cared to be so by process_init_reply).
>
> Please see [1] for context where the problem of stuck filesystem was hit
> for real (because kernel client was incorrectly sending more than
> max_write data with NOTIFY_REPLY; see also previous patch), 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

Applied.

Thanks,
Miklos

  reply	other threads:[~2019-04-24 10:48 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-03-27 10:15 [RESEND4, PATCH 0/2] fuse: don't stuck clients on retrieve_notify with size > max_write Kirill Smelkov
2019-03-27 10:15 ` [RESEND4, PATCH 2/2] fuse: require /dev/fuse reads to have enough buffer capacity as negotiated Kirill Smelkov
2019-04-24 10:48   ` Miklos Szeredi [this message]
2019-04-24 11:58     ` Kirill Smelkov
2019-03-27 10:15 ` [RESEND4, PATCH 1/2] fuse: retrieve: cap requested size to negotiated max_write Kirill Smelkov
2019-04-24 10:44   ` Miklos Szeredi
2019-04-24 11:56     ` Kirill Smelkov
2019-04-24 12:17       ` Miklos Szeredi
2019-04-24 12:31         ` Kirill Smelkov
2019-04-24 13:19           ` Miklos Szeredi
2019-04-24 14:22             ` Kirill Smelkov
2019-04-24 15:02               ` Miklos Szeredi
2019-04-24 18:10                 ` Kirill Smelkov
2019-04-24 18:59                   ` 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='CAJfpegurLOLoNd9p2avcXPhSvP+ux8V+A=ghBySSpn0pX_Afpg@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=miklos@szeredi.hu \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=fuse-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
    --cc=hanwen@google.com \
    --cc=jakobunt@gmail.com \
    --cc=kirr@nexedi.com \
    --cc=ktkhai@virtuozzo.com \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mszeredi@redhat.com \
    /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).