linux-kernel - Re: [fuse-devel] [PATCH 0/5] fuse: close file synchronously (v2)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 9 Jun 2014 14:46:07 +0400
From:	Maxim Patlasov <mpatlasov@...allels.com>
To:	John Muir <john@...ir.com>
CC:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
	fuse-devel <fuse-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
	Linux List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [fuse-devel] [PATCH 0/5] fuse: close file synchronously (v2)

On 06/09/2014 01:26 PM, John Muir wrote:
> On 2014.06.09, at 9:50 , Maxim Patlasov <mpatlasov@...allels.com> wrote:
>
>> On 06/06/2014 05:51 PM, John Muir wrote:
>>> On 2014.06.06, at 15:27 , Maxim Patlasov <mpatlasov@...allels.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The patch-set resolves the problem by making fuse_release synchronous:
>>>> wait for ACK from userspace for FUSE_RELEASE if the feature is ON.
>>> Why not make this feature per-file with a new flag bit in struct fuse_file_info rather than as a file-system global?
>> I don't expect a great demand for such a granularity. File-system global "close_wait" conveys a general user expectation about filesystem behaviour in distributed environment: if you stopped using a file on given node, whether it means that the file is immediately accessible from another node.
>>
> By user do you mean the end-user, or the implementor of the file-system? It seems to me that the end-user doesn't care, and just wants the file-system to work as expected. I don't think we're really talking about the end-user.

No, this is exactly about end-user expectations. Imagine a complicated 
heavy-loaded shared storage where handling FUSE_RELEASE in userspace may 
take a few minutes. In close_wait=0 case, an end-user who has just 
called close(2) has no idea when it's safe to access the file from 
another node or even when it's OK to umount filesystem.

>
> The implementor of a file-system, on the other hand, might want the semantics for close_wait on some files, but not on others. Won't there be a performance impact? Some distributed file-systems might want this on specific files only. Implementing it as a flag on the struct fuse_file_info gives the flexibility to the file-system implementor.

fuse_file_info is an userspace structure, in-kernel fuse knows nothing 
about it. In close_wait=1 case, nothing prevents a file-system 
implementation from ACK-ing FUSE_RELEASE request immediately (for 
specific files) and schedule actual handling for future processing.

Thanks,
Maxim
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/