lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Dec]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [GIT PULL] overlayfs update for 4.10
On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 3:12 AM, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 09:49:26PM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>> Hi Al,
>>
>> I usually send overlayfs pulls directly to Linus, but it it suits you, please
>> feel free to pull from:
>>
>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mszeredi/vfs.git overlayfs-linus
>>
>> This update contains:
>>
>> - try to clone on copy-up;
>> - allow renaming a directory;
>> - fix data inconsistency of read-only fds after copy up;
>> - misc cleanups and fixes.
>
> Miklos, I'm very tempted to just let Linus do the... explaining
> why "ovl: add infrastructure for intercepting file ops" is not nicely done.
> It relies upon so damn many subtle things that result is a minefield for
> any later work. If nothing else, you've just created a magical place that
> will have to be modified every time somebody adds a method. Moreover, ->open()
> instances have every right to expect that nothing will change ->f_op after
> they return, period. That includes things like later comparisons of ->f_op
> with known pointers, etc.
>
> Worse, there's nothing to prohibit embedding file_operations into an object
> with lifetime shorter than that of a module. Your approach will blow up on
> those. Sure, at the moment all of them live on weird filesystems that will be
> (hopefully) rejected before you get to that point. With no promise whatsoever
> that this situation will persist.
>
> overlayfs is already one hell of a special snowflake, but this is just plain
> ridiculous - that sticks its fingers into so many places that making sure they
> don't get squashed will be very hard. IMO that kind of stuff is on the
> "this should be handled by VFS or not at all" side of things, and I'm not
> at all sure that doing that anywhere is a good idea.

Let me just argue back with what happened with f_path. We've seen the
breakage, and still nothing guarantees that filesystems won't assume
f_path.dentry isn't theirs. This isn't much different IMO, except I
suspect the fallout from this will be much much smaller than from the
f_path change. Having said that, I can try fixing in the VFS but I
suspect you won't like it much better.

And I tend to agree with you about the usefulness of this whole
change. However (intelligent) people will argue about not building on
overlayfs because it's "not a POSIX fs" having quirks like this. So
it's really the perception that needs to be fixed, and AFAICS the only
way to fix that is to fix the quirks.


> PS: macros like
> +#define OVL_CALL_REAL_FOP(file, call) \
> + ({ struct ovl_fops *__ofop = \
> + container_of(file->f_op, struct ovl_fops, fops); \
> + WARN_ON(__ofop->magic != OVL_FOPS_MAGIC) ? -EIO : \
> + __ofop->orig_fops->call; \
> + })
>
> with uses along the lines of
> + return OVL_CALL_REAL_FOP(file,
> + fsync(file, start, end, datasync));
> make some things (like, you know, "find all places where a method could
> be called") harder for no good reason.

Makes sense. I can expand them inline.

>
> While we are at it,
> + module_put(ofop->owner);
> + fops_put(ofop->orig_fops);
> is wrong - if that was the last reference to a module, your fops_put()
> might very well try and access a vfree'd area...

Yeah the order is wrong. Will fix.

Thanks,
Miklos

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-12-11 14:51    [W:0.042 / U:2.164 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site