Re: [PATCH] tmpfs: use ida to get inode number

[Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>]

On Thu, 21 Nov 2019, J. R. Okajima wrote:
> Hugh Dickins:
> > Internally (in Google) we do rely on good tmpfs inode numbers more
> > than on those of other get_next_ino() filesystems, and carry a patch
> > to mm/shmem.c for it to use 64-bit inode numbers (and separate inode
> > number space for each superblock) - essentially,
> >
> > =09ino =3D sbinfo->next_ino++;
> > =09/* Avoid 0 in the low 32 bits: might appear deleted */
> > =09if (unlikely((unsigned int)ino =3D=3D 0))
> > =09=09ino =3D sbinfo->next_ino++;
> 
> I agree with that "per superblock inum space", but I don't see your
> point.  How can you manage it fully?  I mean how can you decide whether
> the new inum is in use or not?
> For example,
> - you create a file which is assigned inum#10.
> - you or other people create and unlink over and over on the same tmpfs.
> - then sbinfo->next_ino will become zero, skipped, ok.
> - and then it will be 10.
> I don't think you want to share the same inum by two inodes.

64 bits. I haven't done the arithmetic to work out the amusing number,
but zhengbin mentioned the script taking 10 days to duplicate an inode
number in 32 bits, so: a larger number of years than I need to care about.

> 
> Moreover, SysV SHM uses tmpfs and shmget(2) overwrite inum internally.
> It will be another seed of a similar problem.

I was totally ignorant of that peculiarity in ipc/shm.c, thanks for
alerting me to it.  But it doesn't affect what we're doing in tmpfs,
and apparently suits the users of SysV SHM: I don't see any need to
worry about it.

Hugh