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=-1.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham 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 3B13BC169C4 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2019 14:46:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F274F2177B for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2019 14:46:00 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="G7xhFQ4O" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726813AbfBHOqA (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Feb 2019 09:46:00 -0500 Received: from mail-yb1-f195.google.com ([209.85.219.195]:40097 "EHLO mail-yb1-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726568AbfBHOp7 (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Feb 2019 09:45:59 -0500 Received: by mail-yb1-f195.google.com with SMTP id y13so1490493ybr.7; Fri, 08 Feb 2019 06:45:58 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=V9t/Jd664aFeQmWZZqoEsU028xri2S1kac4BhLu1m3E=; b=G7xhFQ4OgcV8JVhvj/z14aqORBxQzQGNiMQCEu3Z7IDj24R7xcOV61S8/vQb7jcc3a KScAziLZ3GIXaWjFrikpp6LDrwdBPaN8mCAmSwr1KiDWOKgieaMQKhS0SAdcsCaEhCO9 xG+eunmPtECx4qwnlqE84z2mTF3CTsfJVLkwv/gCD7pPYdhFnQyk5rS165cW54LgdcGo 2fkFOxWwZcncGh/Y6uhnkcM3/2zNIHyXMuyldOXHcr66Gug5qyUPFFkbYAu6Ty3XusEa Unu5NXakX34R/12tUiB39rhrnPCOc3OeHDx5QbCDsAUA8ZznGHmDREvX5KLSz1UCSJuE Ty3g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=V9t/Jd664aFeQmWZZqoEsU028xri2S1kac4BhLu1m3E=; b=RkZs2Pe4aZCYYal8ZR0ZcX+/fLCOY4SPCa+CbDC3n57B355HQ2Qh2z0b6csKdjnNXV Vh6scIdA2OKVYsyjV9GXMDOjPGhHG44nZnwwi6hkUuBd/c0gL3IWdHlcEbnEGe0Dr76E q1EyHtZLro8wqybAxGHRUoD5wtuTckaC6wTe1DeJulrxXuED/wtjnfRvSMa8EpfMqVwx 8duuTCLhk89BYNId6f9w0+mwn17wWSMgtPYOdEHnmZAXltZgGZ+zjsAy3KjhPr5w3VNb MPuCjmclPs/rsn6AWgJmv1sMPI2dzASw/nZ1zluIrNUYkzqHjDV7j0BISnpxH66+iowz +tyA== X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAubDlpQxTYIVo2GW8aS3IeFXec5k19MLLEA2xo8cTrY8kNOFAA4z 9VPuyhIrqVoVq7TmKm7PYbaSYPQUtJ3NYNGaOlc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IZJnzEvQXqSZUvLMFbMQCtI2/gqIzdUl64TNs7IejM8XReZMa54S6w8GOkBbwMxKiFhWEIcgSaEBuVzdu9tg+c= X-Received: by 2002:a25:ba84:: with SMTP id s4mr18396031ybg.325.1549637158087; Fri, 08 Feb 2019 06:45:58 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <379106947f859bdf5db4c6f9c4ab8c44f7423c08.camel@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: <379106947f859bdf5db4c6f9c4ab8c44f7423c08.camel@kernel.org> From: Amir Goldstein Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2019 16:45:46 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Better interop for NFS/SMB file share mode/reservation To: Jeff Layton Cc: "J. Bruce Fields" , Volker.Lendecke@sernet.de, samba-technical@lists.samba.org, Linux NFS Mailing List , linux-fsdevel , Pavel Shilovsky Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 3:10 PM Jeff Layton wrote: > > On Fri, 2019-02-08 at 13:20 +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > Hi Bruce, > > > > I have been following you discussion with Volker Lendecke > > on the samba technical mailing list [1] and have had discussed > > this issue with Volker myself as well. > > > > I decided to start this new thread to bring some kernel developers > > in the loop and to propose an idea that takes a somewhat > > different approach to the "interop" approaches I have seen > > so far. "interop" in this context often means consistency of file > > lock states between samba and nfs server, but I am referring > > to the stronger sense of interop with local filesystem on the server. > > > > You pointed to Pavel Shilovsky's O_DENY* patches [2] as a possible > > solution to interop of NFS Share Reservation and SMB Share Mode > > with local filesystems. > > Some of the complaints on this approach were (rightfully) concerned > > about DoS and the prospect of plaguing Linux with Windows server > > "files left open" issues. > > > > My idea comes from the observation that Windows server > > administrators can release locked files that were left open by clients. > > I suppose that an NFS server admin can do the same? > > The Linux kernel has no mechanism for this (aside from sending a SIGKILL > to lockd, which makes it drop all locks). Solaris did have a tool for > this at one point (and probably still does). > > It's a little less of a problem now than it used to be with NFS, given > the move to NFSv4 (which has lease-based locking). If you have > misbehaving clients, you just kick them out and their locks eventually > go away. v3 locks can stick around in perpetuity however, so people have > long wanted such a tool on Linux as well. > In a nut shell, I think my proposal is that samba will do something similar and request leases from the kernel instead of trying to enforce real mandatory locks. > > That realization makes "share access" locks (a.k.a. MAND_LOCK) > > not so very different from oplocks (leases/delegations). > > As long as samba and nfsd cooperate nicely with MAND_LOCK > > semantics, we don't really have to force local filesystems > > to obay MAND_LOCK semantics. If the file servers take leases > > on local filesystems, they will not get exclusive write access for > > files already open for write on local filesytem and same for read. > > > > I think this last statement isn't correct (if I'm parsing it correctly). > If a file is already open for write, then you just don't get a lease > when you try to request one. Ditto for write leases if it's already open > for read. > I think you miss read what I miss wrote ;-) As the title of this thread states, I am talking about the first case of acquiring an exclusive or read shared access to file at open time. It may be the fact that samba currently calls flock(LOCK_MAND) that is the source for confusion. Open failure is the expected behavior if file is already open for write (or read) on local filesystem, so my suggestion is: - Server opens the file and request a lease based of desired share mode - If file server got the lease, client gets the file handle - Otherwise, client gets an open failure > > On local file access on the server that violates the share mode, > > the file server acts as a grumpy washed out administrator that > > automatically grants any lock revoke ticket after timeout. > > > > Devil's advocate: > > Is this situation any better than just teaching the NFS/SMB servers to > track these locks out of band? Both samba and most NFS servers respect > share/deny mode locks, but only internally -- they aren't aware of the > others'. We could (in principle) come up with a mechanism to track these > that doesn't involve plumbing them into the kernel. > That would be a prerequisite to my suggested solution, as I wrote: "As long as samba and nfsd cooperate nicely with LOCK_MAND..." That means the two file servers cooperate on the share mode locks and try to figure out if there are outstanding leases before opening a file that will break those leases. > That said, coherent locking is best done in the kernel, IMO... > Indeed... > > This model may not fit use cases where "real" interop with > > local filesystem is needed, but compared to the existing > > solution (no interop at all) it is quite an improvement. > > > > Furthermore, short of SMB DENY_DELETE, we may not even > > need to change any kernel APIs. > > The addition of O_DENY* open flags can make programming > > easier, but taking a lease on an open file is still safe enough > > to implement share reservation (no?). > > > > Satisfying DENY_DELETE could be more tricky, but perhaps > > the existing SILLYRENAME interface of==between knfsd and vfs > > could be somehow utilized for this purpose? > > > > I though of bringing this up as a TOPIC for LSF/MM, but wanted > > to consult with you first. I am sure that you or Jeff can do a better > > job than me in enumerating the "interop" file lock issues that > > could be discussed in filesystems track forum. > > > > Thoughts? Explanation why this idea is idiotic? > > I think it's not a single idea. There are really two different aspects > to this given that we're really talking about two different types of > locks in SMB. I think you have to consider solving these problems > separately: > > 1) the ability to set a (typically whole-file) share/deny lock > atomically when you open a file. This is necessary for coherent > share/deny lock semantics. Note that these are only enforced open() > time. > > 2) mandatory locking (forbidding reads and writes on a byte range when > there is a conflicting lock set). > I was only trying to address the first problem (small steps...). > The first could (probably) be solved with something like what Pavel > proposed a few years ago...or maybe we just wire up O_EXLOCK and > O_SHLOCK: > > https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_node/Open_002dtime-Flags.html > Nice. I wasn't aware of those BSD flags. > This seems like a fine idea (in principle) but it needs someone to drive > the work forward. You'll also likely be consuming a couple of O_* flags, > which could be tough sell (unless you come up with another way to do > it). > Once I know the obstacles to watch out from, I can drive this work. Thing is, I am not convinced myself that any new O_ flags are needed. How about this (for samba, knfsd is simpler): - pfd = open(filename, O_PATH) - flock(pfd, LOCK_MAND) (for file servers interop) - vfs checks no conflicting LOCK_MAND locks (like patch you once posted) - open(filename, O_RDWR) (and verify st_ino like samba does) - Request lease (for local fs interop) - check_conflicting_open() is changed to use inode_is_open_for_read() instead of checking d_count and i_count. - we already have i_readcount, just need to remove ifdef CONFIG_IMA - On lease break (from local fs), break client oplocks and invalidate file handle on server Thanks, Amir.