From: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>
To: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>, Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
overlayfs <linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
Colin Walters <walters@verbum.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
syzbot <syzbot+d6ec23007e951dadf3de@syzkaller.appspotmail.com>,
syzkaller-bugs <syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] hugetlb: use f_mode & FMODE_HUGETLBFS to identify hugetlbfs files
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2020 12:12:04 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <6e8924b0-bfc4-eaf5-1775-54f506cdf623@oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAOQ4uxg=o2SVbfUiz0nOg-XHG8irvAsnXzFWjExjubk2v_6c_A@mail.gmail.com>
On 6/12/20 11:53 PM, Amir Goldstein wrote:
>>> Incidentally, can a hugetlbfs be a lower layer, while the upper one
>>> is a normal filesystem? What should happen on copyup?
>>
>> Yes, that seems to work as expected. When accessed for write the hugetlb
>> file is copied to the normal filesystem.
>>
>> The BUG found by syzbot actually has a single hugetlbfs as both lower and
>> upper. With the BUG 'fixed', I am not exactly sure what the expected
>> behavior is in this case. I may be wrong, but I would expect any operations
>> that can be performed on a stand alone hugetlbfs to also be performed on
>> the overlay. However, mmap() still fails. I will look into it.
>>
>> I also looked at normal filesystem lower and hugetlbfs upper. Yes, overlayfs
>> allows this. This is somewhat 'interesting' as write() is not supported in
>> hugetlbfs. Writing to files in the overlay actually ended up writing to
>> files in the lower filesystem. That seems wrong, but overlayfs is new to me.
>>
>
> I am not sure how that happened, but I think that ovl_open_realfile()
> needs to fixup f_mode flags FMODE_CAN_WRITE | FMODE_CAN_READ
> after open_with_fake_path().
>
>> Earlier in the discussion of these issues, Colin Walters asked "Is there any
>> actual valid use case for mounting an overlayfs on top of hugetlbfs?" I can
>> not think of one. Perhaps we should consider limiting the ways in which
>> hugetlbfs can be used in overlayfs? Preventing it from being an upper
>> filesystem might be a good start? Or, do people think making hugetlbfs and
>> overlayfs play nice together is useful?
>
> If people think that making hugetlbfs and overlayfs play nice together maybe
> they should work on this problem. It doesn't look like either
> hugetlbfs developers
> nor overlayfs developers care much about the combination.
Thanks Amir,
As a hugetlbfs developer, I do not know of a use case for interoperability
with overlayfs. So yes, I am not too interested in making them work well
together. However, if there was an actual use case I would be more than
happy to consider doing the work. Just hate to put effort into fixing up
two 'special' filesystems for functionality that may not be used.
I can't speak for overlayfs developers.
> Your concern, I assume, is fixing the syzbot issue.
That is the primary concern. We should not BUG! After fixing that up, Al
asked how these things worked together. I honestly did not look at
interoperability before that. I am not sure if anyone has done that in the
past.
> I agree with Colin's remark about adding limitations, but it would be a shame
> if overlay had to special case hugetlbfs. It would have been better if we could
> find a property of hugetlbfs that makes it inapplicable for overlayfs
> upper/lower
> or stacking fs in general.
>
> The simplest thing for you to do in order to shush syzbot is what procfs does:
> /*
> * procfs isn't actually a stacking filesystem; however, there is
> * too much magic going on inside it to permit stacking things on
> * top of it
> */
> s->s_stack_depth = FILESYSTEM_MAX_STACK_DEPTH;
>
> Currently, the only in-tree stacking fs are overlayfs and ecryptfs, but there
> are some out of tree implementations as well (shiftfs).
> So you may only take that option if you do not care about the combination
> of hugetlbfs with any of the above.
>
> overlayfs support of mmap is not as good as one might hope.
> overlayfs.rst says:
> "If a file residing on a lower layer is opened for read-only and then
> memory mapped with MAP_SHARED, then subsequent changes to
> the file are not reflected in the memory mapping."
>
> So if I were you, I wouldn't go trying to fix overlayfs-huguetlb interop...
Thanks again,
I'll look at something as simple as s_stack_depth.
--
Mike Kravetz
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-06-13 19:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-06-12 0:46 [PATCH v4 1/2] hugetlb: use f_mode & FMODE_HUGETLBFS to identify hugetlbfs files Mike Kravetz
2020-06-12 0:46 ` [PATCH v4 2/2] ovl: call underlying get_unmapped_area() routine. propogate FMODE_HUGETLBFS Mike Kravetz
2020-06-14 12:50 ` Amir Goldstein
2020-06-12 1:53 ` [PATCH v4 1/2] hugetlb: use f_mode & FMODE_HUGETLBFS to identify hugetlbfs files Matthew Wilcox
2020-06-12 1:58 ` Al Viro
2020-06-12 21:51 ` Mike Kravetz
2020-06-13 6:53 ` Amir Goldstein
2020-06-13 14:38 ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-06-13 19:12 ` Mike Kravetz [this message]
2020-06-15 7:53 ` Miklos Szeredi
2020-06-15 10:05 ` Amir Goldstein
2020-06-15 13:01 ` Miklos Szeredi
2020-06-15 23:45 ` Mike Kravetz
2020-06-16 9:01 ` Miklos Szeredi
2020-06-15 8:24 ` Miklos Szeredi
2020-06-15 17:48 ` Mike Kravetz
2020-06-12 6:28 ` [RFC PATCH] hugetlb: hugetlbfs_file_operations can be static kernel test robot
2020-06-13 14:19 ` [hugetlb] 5156c6c1b9: INFO:trying_to_register_non-static_key kernel test robot
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=6e8924b0-bfc4-eaf5-1775-54f506cdf623@oracle.com \
--to=mike.kravetz@oracle.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=amir73il@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=miklos@szeredi.hu \
--cc=syzbot+d6ec23007e951dadf3de@syzkaller.appspotmail.com \
--cc=syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=walters@verbum.org \
--cc=willy@infradead.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).