lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Aug]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/5] hybrid union filesystem prototype
From
Date
Hi Neil,

On Fri, 27 Aug 2010, Neil Brown wrote:
> My first problem with this that there isn't nearly enough documentation.
> So I offer the following to fix this problem. Please correct anything that I
> got glaringly wrong. I don't claim it is at all complete, but touches on the
> things that I thought were interesting.

Whoa, thank you very much. I'll add it to the patchset with some
fixes (see below).

> Hybrid Union Filesystem
> =======================
>
> This document describes a prototype for a new approach to providing
> union-filesystem functionality in Linux.
> A union-filesystem tries to present the union of two different filesystems as
> though it were a single filesystem. The result will inevitably fail to look
> exactly like a normal filesystem for various technical reasons. The
> expectation is that many use cases will be able to ignore these differences.
>
> This approach is 'hybrid' because the objects that appear in the filesystem
> do not all appear to belong to that filesystem. In many case an object
> accessed in the hybrid-union will be indistinguishable from accessing the
> corresponding object from the original filesystem. This is most obvious
> from the 'st_dev' field returned by stat(2). Some objects will report an
> st_dev from one original filesystem, some from the other, none will report an
> st_dev from the union itself.

Hmm, that's a bug. Directories actually come from the union itself
for various reasons, and it does report the correct st_ino but not
st_dev. Fixed.

> Similarly st_ino will only be unique when
> combined with st_dev, and both of these can change over the lifetime of an
> object.
> Many applications and tools ignore these values and will not be affected.
>
> Upper and Lower
> ---------------
>
> A union filesystem combines two filesystems - an 'upper' filesystem and a
> 'lower' filesystem. Note that while in set theory, 'union' is a commutative
> operation, in filesystems it is not - the two filesystems are treated
> differently. When a name exists in both filesystems, the object in the
> 'upper' filesystem is visible while the object in the 'lower' filesystem is
> either hidden or, in the case of directories, merged with the 'upper' object.
>
> It would be more correct to refer to an upper and lower 'directory tree'
> rather than 'filesystem' as it is quite possible for both directory trees to
> be in the same filesystem and there is no requirement that the root of a
> filesystem be given for either upper or lower.
>
> The lower filesystem can be any filesystem supported by Linux and does not
> need to be writable. It could even be another union.

Almost. Xattr namespace issues currently prevent that, but with
escaping it could be worked around if necessary.

> The upper filesystem will normally be writeable and if it is it must support
> the creation of trusted.* extended attributes, and must provide valid d_type
> in readdir responses, at least for symbolic links - so NFS is not suitable.
>
> A read-only union of two read-only filesystems is support for any filesystem
> type.

s/is support for/may use/

>
> Directories
> -----------
>
> Unioning mainly involved directories. If a given name appears in both upper
> ad lower filesystems and refers to a non-directory in either, then the lower
> object is hidden - the name refers only to the upper object.
>
> Where both upper and lower objects are directories, a merged directory is
> formed.
>
> At mount time, the two directories given as mount options are combined
> into a merged directory. Then whenever a lookup is requested in such a
> merged directory, the lookup is performed in each actual directory and the
> combined result is cached in the dentry belonging to the union filesystem.
> If both actual lookups find directories, both are stored and a merged
> directory is create, otherwise only one is stored: the upper if it exists,
> else the lower.
>
> Only the lists of names from directories are merged. Other content such as
> metadata and extended attributes are reported for the upper directory only.
> These attributes of the lower directory are hidden.
>
> whiteouts and opaque directories
> --------------------------------
>
> In order to support rm and rmdir without changing the lower filesystem, a
> union filesystem needs to record in the upper filesystem that files have been
> removed. This is done using whiteouts and opaque directories (non-directories
> are always opaque).
>
> The hybrid union filesystem uses extended attributes with a "trusted.union."
> prefix to record these details.
>
> A whiteout is created as a symbolic link with target "(union-whiteout)" and
> with xattr "trusted.union.whiteout" set to "y". When a whiteout is found in
> the upper level of a merged directory, any matching name in the lower level
> is ignored, and the whiteout itself is also hidden.
>
> A directory is made opaque by setting the xattr "trusted.union.opaque" to "y".
> Where the upper filesystem contains an opaque directory, any directory in the
> lower filesystem with the same name is ignored.
>
> readdir
> -------
>
> When a 'readdir' request is made on a merged directory, the upper and lower
> directories are each read and the name lists merged in the obvious way (upper
> is read first, then lower - entries that already exist are not re-added).
> This merged name list is cached in the 'struct file' and so remains as long as
> the file is kept open. If the directory is opened and read by two processes
> at the same time, they will each have separate caches.
> A seekdir to the start of the directory (offset 0) followed by a readdir will
> cause the cache to be discarded and rebuilt.
>
> This means that changes to the merged directory do not appear while a
> directory is being read. This is unlikely to be noticed by many programs.
>
> seek offsets are assigned sequentially when the directories are read. Thus
> if
> - read part of a directory
> - remember an offset, and close the directory
> - re-open the directory some time later
> - seek to the remembered offset
>
> there may be little correlation between the old and new locations in the list
> of filenames, particularly if anything has changed in the directory.
>
> Readdir on directories that are not merged is simply handled by the
> underlying directory (upper or lower).
>
>
> Non-directories
> ---------------
>
> Objects that are not directories (files, symlinks, device-special files etc)
> are presented either from the upper or lower filesystem as appropriate.
> When a file in the lower filesystem is accessed in a way the requires
> write-access; such as opening for write access, changing some metadata etc,
> the file is first copied from the lower filesystem to the upper filesystem
> (copy_up). Note that creating a hard-link also requires copy-up, though of
> course creation of a symlink does not.
>
> The copy_up process first makes sure that the containing directory exists
> in the upper filesystem - creating it and any parents as necessary. It then
> creates the object with the same metadata (owner, mode, mtime, symlink-target
> etc) and then if the object is a file, the data is copied from the lower to
> the upper filesystem. Finally any extended attributes are copied up.
>
> Once the copy_up is complete, the hybrid-union filesystem simply provides
> direct access to the newly created file in the upper filesystem - future
> operations on the file are barely noticed by the hybrid-union (though an
> operation on the name of the file such as rename or unlink will of course be
> noticed and handled).
>
> Changes to underlying filesystems
> ---------------------------------
>

For now I refuse to even think about what happens in this case.

The easiest way out of this mess might simply be to enforce exclusive
modification to the underlying filesystems on a local level, same as
the union mount strategy. For NFS and other remote filesystems we
either

a) add some way to enforce it,
b) live with the consequences if not enforced on the system level, or
c) disallow them to be part of the union.


> The hybrid-union filesystem does not insist that the upper and lower
> filesystems that it combines remain read-only. This is certainly preferred
> but it is non-trivial to enforce (e.g. for NFS) and so cannot be depended on.
> A system integrator should ensure the underlying filesystems are not changed
> - except through the hybrid union - if they want predictable behaviour, or
> must accept the consequences.
> The hybrid-union filesystem only ensures that unexpected changes do not cause
> a system crash or serious corruption to either underlying filesystem.
>
> The exact behaviour of the hybrid-union is best described in terms from the
> 'dcache' and as objects can expire from the 'dcache' at unpredictable times,
> the exact behaviour when the underlying filesystems change is in
> general unpredictable.
>
> Each dcache entry in the hybrid union holds a reference to a corresponding
> dcache entry in upper or lower filesystem or, in the case of merged
> directories, in both the upper and lower filesystems.
>
> If a referenced file is rename directly in one of the filesystems, that
> renaming will not be noticed in the hybrid union until the referencing dcache
> entry expires.
>
> If a referenced file is unlinked from a local filesystem, it could similarly
> still be accessibly through the hybrid while the dcache entry persists. If a
> referenced file is on an NFS filesystem and is unlinked remotely, the file in
> the hybrid-union will become 'stale' returning ESTALE for most accesses. It
> will not disappear until the dcache entry expires from the dcache.
>
> If a referenced file is changed, either contents or metadata, that change
> will be immediately visible in the hybrid union.
>
> If the contents of a directory are changed, then a readdir will not see that
> change unless it opens the file or seeks to the start of the file after the
> change was made. Then it will be visible.
>
> Changes will *not* be visible to a lookup if the name that is changed is
> currently cached in the the dcache, whether positive or negative.
> e.g. If a name is looked for in the hybrid union and not found, a negative
> dcache entry will be created. If the same name is directly created in the
> upper filesystem it will not immediately become visible to the hybrid, though
> it will be visible in a readdir. This could be confusing, and could
> probably be fixed using dcache revalidation.
>

Thanks,
Miklos


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-08-27 10:51    [W:0.156 / U:11.880 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site