Date:   Sat, 22 Oct 2016 10:24:11 +0300
From:   Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>
To:     Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Cc:     Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>, linux-unionfs@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jeremy Eder <jeder@...hat.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Ratna Bolla <rbolla@...tworx.com>, Gou Rao <grao@...tworx.com>,
        Vinod Jayaraman <jv@...tworx.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Subject: Re: [POC/RFC PATCH] overlayfs: fix data inconsistency at copy up

On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 11:13 PM, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 11:53:41AM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 11:54 PM, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 04:46:30PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
>> >
>> > [..]
>> >> > +static ssize_t ovl_read_iter(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *to)
>> >> > +{
>> >> > +   struct file *file = iocb->ki_filp;
>> >> > +   bool isupper = OVL_TYPE_UPPER(ovl_path_type(file->f_path.dentry));
>> >> > +   ssize_t ret = -EINVAL;
>> >> > +
>> >> > +   if (likely(!isupper)) {
>> >> > +           const struct file_operations *fop = ovl_real_fop(file);
>> >> > +
>> >> > +           if (likely(fop->read_iter))
>> >> > +                   ret = fop->read_iter(iocb, to);
>> >> > +   } else {
>> >> > +           struct file *upperfile = filp_clone_open(file);
>> >> > +
>> >>
>> >> IIUC, every read of lower file will call filp_clone_open(). Looking at the
>> >> code of filp_clone_open(), I am concerned about the overhead of this call.
>> >> Is it significant? Don't want to be paying too much of penalty for read
>> >> operation on lower files. That would be a common case for containers.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Looks like I read the code in reverse. So if I open a file read-only,
>> > and if it has not been copied up, I will simply call read_iter() on
>> > lower filesystem. But if file has been copied up, then I will call
>> > filp_clone_open() and pay the cost. And this will continue till this
>> > file is closed by caller.
>> >
>>
>> I wonder if that cost could be reduced by calling replace_fd() or
>> some variant of it to install the cloned file onto the rofd after the
>> first access??
>
> Hmm.., Interesting. Will something like following work? This applies on
> top of Miklos's patch. It seems to work for me. It might be completely
> broken/racy though. Somebody who understands this code well, will have
> to have a look.
>

The idea sounded scary already when I suggested it :)
See below what I think is scary about this implementation...

Thanks for following through.


> ---
>  fs/file.c            |   41 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  fs/overlayfs/inode.c |    1 +
>  2 files changed, 42 insertions(+)
>
> Index: rhvgoyal-linux/fs/overlayfs/inode.c
> ===================================================================
> --- rhvgoyal-linux.orig/fs/overlayfs/inode.c    2016-10-21 15:43:05.391488406 -0400
> +++ rhvgoyal-linux/fs/overlayfs/inode.c 2016-10-21 16:07:57.409420795 -0400
> @@ -416,6 +416,7 @@ static ssize_t ovl_read_iter(struct kioc
>                 if (IS_ERR(upperfile)) {
>                         ret = PTR_ERR(upperfile);
>                 } else {
> +                       replace_file(file, upperfile);

When fdtable is not shared (single threaded process), after this call
I think that file pointer
may be free (?), because file is not reference counted.
Although I did not see any code in VFS callers trying to dereference
the file pointer after
calling read_iter(), this seems like a dangerous practice, so will
need to a way to fix that.

>                         ret = vfs_iter_read(upperfile, to, &iocb->ki_pos);
>                         fput(upperfile);
>                 }
> Index: rhvgoyal-linux/fs/file.c
> ===================================================================
> --- rhvgoyal-linux.orig/fs/file.c       2016-10-21 15:43:05.391488406 -0400
> +++ rhvgoyal-linux/fs/file.c    2016-10-21 16:08:18.168420795 -0400
> @@ -864,6 +864,47 @@ Ebusy:
>         return -EBUSY;
>  }
>
> +
> +int replace_file(struct file *old_file, struct file *new_file)
> +{
> +#define MAX_TO_FREE    8
> +       int n, idx = 0;
> +       struct files_struct *files = current->files;
> +       struct fdtable *fdt;
> +       struct file *to_free[MAX_TO_FREE];
> +       bool retry = false;
> +
> +try_again:
> +       spin_lock(&files->file_lock);
> +       for (n = 0, fdt = files_fdtable(files); n < fdt->max_fds; n++) {
> +                struct file *file;
> +                file = rcu_dereference_check_fdtable(files, fdt->fd[n]);
> +                if (!file)
> +                        continue;
> +               if (file == old_file) {
> +                       get_file(new_file);
> +                       rcu_assign_pointer(fdt->fd[n], new_file);
> +                       to_free[idx++] = file;
> +                       if (idx >= MAX_TO_FREE) {
> +                               retry = true;
> +                               break;
> +                       }
> +               }
> +        }
> +       spin_unlock(&files->file_lock);
> +       while (idx) {
> +               filp_close(to_free[--idx], files);
> +       }
> +
> +       if (retry) {
> +               retry = false;
> +               idx = 0;
> +               goto try_again;
> +       }
> +       return 0;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(replace_file);
> +
>  int replace_fd(unsigned fd, struct file *file, unsigned flags)
>  {
>         int err;

Powered by blists - more mailing lists