linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Kirill Smelkov <kirr@nexedi.com>
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>, Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@redhat.com>
Cc: <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	<fuse-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>,
	Kirill Smelkov <kirr@nexedi.com>,
	Han-Wen Nienhuys <hanwen@google.com>,
	Jakob Unterwurzacher <jakobunt@gmail.com>
Subject: [RESEND3, PATCH 0/2] fuse: don't stuck clients on retrieve_notify with size > max_write
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 10:45:55 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <cover.1552558717.git.kirr@nexedi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190307093421.GA4620@deco.navytux.spb.ru>

Miklos,

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.

[...]

On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 12:34:21PM +0300, Kirill Smelkov wrote:
> Ping. Miklos, is there anything wrong with this patch and its
> second counterpart?

As we were talking here are those patches. The first one cuts notify_retrieve
request to max_write and is one line only. The second one returns error to
filesystem server if it is buggy and does sys_read with buffer size <
max_write. It is 2 lines of code and 7 lines of comments.

I still think that the patches fix real bugs. It is a bug if server behaviour
is a bit non-confirming or simply on an edge of being correct or questionable,
and instead of properly getting plain error from kernel, the whole system gets
stuck. It is a bug because bug amplification factor here is at least one order
of magnitude instead of staying ~1x.

I'm sending the patches for the third time already, but did not get any
feedback. Could you please have a look?

Thanks beforehand,
Kirill


Kirill Smelkov (2):
  fuse: retrieve: cap requested size to negotiated max_write
  fuse: require /dev/fuse reads to have enough buffer capacity as negotiated

 fs/fuse/dev.c | 12 +++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

-- 
2.21.0.225.g810b269d1a

  reply	other threads:[~2019-03-14 11:00 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             ` [RESEND, PATCH v2] fuse: Don't drop NOTIFY_REPLY if we promised it Kirill Smelkov
2019-03-14 10:45               ` Kirill Smelkov [this message]
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=cover.1552558717.git.kirr@nexedi.com \
    --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 \
    /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).