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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 11:06:18 +0100 From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu> To: Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@...il.com> Cc: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>, Raphael Hertzog <hertzog@...ian.org>, Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>, "linux-unionfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-unionfs@...r.kernel.org>, Guillem Jover <guillem@...ian.org>, linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] ovl: redirect on rename-dir On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 10:46 AM, Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@...il.com> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 1:56 AM, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 3:38 PM, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@...il.com> wrote: >>>> On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 1:04 PM, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu> wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@...il.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I've stumbled on somehow related problem - concurrent copy-ups are >>>>>> strictly serialized by rename locks. >>>>>> Obviously, file copying could be done in parallel: locks are required >>>>>> only for final rename. >>>>>> Because of that overlay slower that aufs for some workloads. >>>>> >>>>> Easy to fix: for each copy up create a separate subdir of "work". >>>>> Then the contention is only for the time of creating the subdir, which >>>>> is very short. >>>> >>>> Yeah, but lock_rename() also takes per-sb s_vfs_rename_mutex (kludge by Al Viro) >>>> I think proper synchronization for concurrent copy-up (for example >>>> round flag on ovl_entry) and locking rename only for rename could be >>>> better. >>> >>> Removing s_vfs_rename_mutex from copy-up path is something I have been >>> pondering about. >>> Assuming that I understand Al's comment above vfs_rename() correctly, >>> the sole purpose of per-sb serialization is to prevent loop creations. >>> However, how can one create a loop by moving a non-directory? >>> So it looks like at least for the non-dir copy up case, a much finer grained >>> lock is in order. >>> >> >> >> I posted patches to relax the s_vfs_rename_mutex for copy-up and >> whiteout in some use cases. >> >> Konstantin, >> >> It would be useful to know if those patches help with your use case. >> > > Well.. I think relaxing only s_vfs_rename_mutex wouldn't help much here. > Copying is still serialized by i_mutex on workdir? > Data copying should be done without rename locks at all. We do need something to prevent multiple copy-ups starting up in parallel on the same file, though. Thanks, Miklos
Powered by blists - more mailing lists