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=-0.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS 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 4E962C433E0 for ; Mon, 18 May 2020 09:17:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D31F20643 for ; Mon, 18 May 2020 09:17:18 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="key not found in DNS" (0-bit key) header.d=szeredi.hu header.i=@szeredi.hu header.b="GwLWHDJp" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726285AbgERJRR (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 May 2020 05:17:17 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:37040 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726270AbgERJRR (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 May 2020 05:17:17 -0400 Received: from mail-ed1-x541.google.com (mail-ed1-x541.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::541]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C959C05BD09 for ; Mon, 18 May 2020 02:17:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ed1-x541.google.com with SMTP id s19so7810548edt.12 for ; Mon, 18 May 2020 02:17:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=szeredi.hu; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=8xlz8GsaEbqA7+Q0OgDVIVF7fZyrH+eyib1SwOfcFkk=; b=GwLWHDJpAgtpfvRU2Fl0XDrm+cFz4QU1FCrNrXPGsMOh9MUPIXxxx/3Lu8Q77ZsTfP QMhnLgCbloAHRfhuT9x29yE5bYKzLSOk9n3b5ynOwjNVCiJTyCp2gnhRJuhmeHLP5kVD vsENIg0p4v6RIzz74CLJvqgxw3JCcY0Fa9KIQ= 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=8xlz8GsaEbqA7+Q0OgDVIVF7fZyrH+eyib1SwOfcFkk=; b=rOPdhyDyQVOVe7EsuTFGB7cOnG9aQTZCxyQXFuFrr4sPMp8kjnEtq/EZt90tKuO/eF +ay4SRv3ZMuhs12xoMGwwmXrNCl0xICfJyx7ItZ7dAt/8m9H6bGAaLVkVLU6jbaTgFDT yoZki2FpqwpnufQReLNRQ+bx/yirP2u/jmpoMVW7SiscRPrWuDLu4WV4gXjs3LnTd7UI mRqlBf5TEl7STpmtT2wNhYnI5i8yQolulKmqN2qYQvPocsibISqbnGriozpvezkpgpUS o4l1DN4ShIODmKPfPOOfh4k/1+bNMwMdd46kR+yoAcE3VEwsBvxqfbhtu9IEky74E5i3 VfOg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531xpIpiCU6G56g5AYs6K/qdmeCh/dcHx+6Pn0XMvBhJiFLbTTga mudfGASeyqcQXaLlWbzFG5z21q6qNiLvwE+F0LulF/dkrjc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwpDqdsy9lmKmYTn6XGegQYLl2kT288a0DXA49iyCvZtD8jstRHqiY9fH6eZ1ZmbGlu5YMqc03a2MQokxkbGSM= X-Received: by 2002:a50:8d57:: with SMTP id t23mr12955766edt.168.1589793435950; Mon, 18 May 2020 02:17:15 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200515072047.31454-1-cgxu519@mykernel.net> In-Reply-To: From: Miklos Szeredi Date: Mon, 18 May 2020 11:17:04 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 0/9] Suppress negative dentry To: Amir Goldstein Cc: Ian Kent , Chengguang Xu , Al Viro , linux-fsdevel , overlayfs Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-unionfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 10:52 AM Amir Goldstein wrote: > > > > > I also do really see the need for it because only hashed negative > > > > dentrys will be retained by the VFS so, if you see a hashed negative > > > > dentry then you can cause it to be discarded on release of the last > > > > reference by dropping it. > > > > > > > > So what's different here, why is adding an argument to do that drop > > > > in the VFS itself needed instead of just doing it in overlayfs? > > > > > > That was v1 patch. It was dealing with the possible race of > > > returned negative dentry becoming positive before dropping it > > > in an intrusive manner. > > > > > > In retrospect, I think this race doesn't matter and there is no > > > harm in dropping a positive dentry in a race obviously caused by > > > accessing the underlying layer, which as documented results in > > > "undefined behavior". > > > > > > Miklos, am I missing something? > > > > Dropping a positive dentry is harmful in case there's a long term > > reference to the dentry (e.g. an open file) since it will look as if > > the file was deleted, when in fact it wasn't. > > > > I see. My point was that the negative->positive transition cannot > happen on underlying layers without user modifying underlying > layers underneath overlay, so it is fine to be in the "undefined" behavior > zone. Right, I don't think you can actually crash a filesystem by unhashing a positive dentry in the middle of a create op, but it would definitely be prudent to avoid that. > > > It's possible to unhash a negative dentry in a safe way if we make > > sure it cannot become positive. One way is to grab d_lock and remove > > it from the hash table only if count is one. > > > > So yes, we could have a helper to do that instead of the lookup flag. > > The disadvantage being that we'd also be dropping negatives that did > > not enter the cache because of our lookup. > > > > I don't really care, both are probably good enough for the overlayfs case. > > > > There is another point to consider. > A negative underlying fs dentry may be useless for *this* overlayfs instance, > but since lower layers can be shared among many overlayfs instances, > for example, thousands of containers all testing for existence of file /etc/FOO > on startup. > > It sounds like if we want to go through with DONTCACHE_NEGATIVE, that > it should be opt-in behavior for overlayfs. Good point. Thanks, Miklos