linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] fat: allocate persistent inode numbers

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]

Message-ID: <20120912174556.GH3009@fieldses.org>
Date:	Wed, 12 Sep 2012 13:45:56 -0400
From:	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
To:	OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>
Cc:	Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@...il.com>,
	"Steven J. Magnani" <steve@...idescorp.com>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Namjae Jeon <namjae.jeon@...sung.com>,
	Ravishankar N <ravi.n1@...sung.com>,
	Amit Sahrawat <a.sahrawat@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] fat: allocate persistent inode numbers

On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 02:38:11AM +0900, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote:
> "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org> writes:
> 
> >> On other view (as server side solution), we are thinking there is
> >> possible to make the stable filehandle on FAT if we disabled some
> >> operations (e.g. rename(), unlink()) which change inode location in FAT.
> >> 
> >> Yes, it would be stable, but supporting limited operations.
> >> 
> >> This is server side solution, and we comparing it with client solution.
> >
> > Is that useful to anyone?
> 
> Good question. I'm not sure though, Namjae is asking. And I was asked
> about stable read-only export in past.
> 
> >> >> LOOKUP return NFS FH->[inode number changed at NFS Server] ->
> >> >> But we still use old NFS FH returned from LOOKUP for any file
> >> >> operation(write,read,etc..)
> >> >> -> ESTALE will be returned.
> >> 
> >> Yes.  And I'm expecting as client side solution,
> >> 
> >> -> ESTALE will be returned -> discard old FH -> restart from LOOKUP ->
> >> make cached inode -> use returned new FH.
> >> 
> >> Yeah, I know this is unstable (there is no perfect solution for now),
> >
> > You may end up with a totally different file, of course:
> >
> > 	client:			server:
> >
> > 	open "/foo/bar"
> > 				rename "/foo/baz"->"/foo/bar"
> > 	write to file
> >
> > And now we're writing to the file that was originally named /foo/baz
> > when we should have gotten ESTALE.
> 
> I see. So, client can't solve the ESTALE if inode cache was evicted,
> right? (without application changes)

I don't see how.


As another server-side workaround: maybe they could try tuning the inode
caching to make eviction less likely?

Grepping around...  Documentation/sysctl/vm.txt mentions a
vfs_cache_pressure parameter.

--b.
--
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/