linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v5 06/10] ovl: implement overlayfs' ->write

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:   Wed, 01 Dec 2021 14:31:07 +0800
From:   Chengguang Xu <cgxu519@...ernel.net>
To:     "Amir Goldstein" <amir73il@...il.com>, "Jan Kara" <jack@...e.cz>,
        "Miklos Szeredi" <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc:     "linux-fsdevel" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "overlayfs" <linux-unionfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "ronyjin" <ronyjin@...cent.com>,
        "charliecgxu" <charliecgxu@...cent.com>,
        "Vivek Goyal" <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v5 06/10] ovl: implement overlayfs' ->write_inode
 operation


 ---- 在 星期三, 2021-12-01 10:37:15 Chengguang Xu <cgxu519@...ernel.net> 撰写 ----
 > 
 >  ---- 在 星期三, 2021-12-01 03:04:59 Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com> 撰写 ----
 >  > >  > I was thinking about this a bit more and I don't think I buy this
 >  > >  > explanation. What I rather think is happening is that real work for syncfs
 >  > >  > (writeback_inodes_sb() and sync_inodes_sb() calls) gets offloaded to a flush
 >  > >  > worker. E.g. writeback_inodes_sb() ends up calling
 >  > >  > __writeback_inodes_sb_nr() which does:
 >  > >  >
 >  > >  > bdi_split_work_to_wbs()
 >  > >  > wb_wait_for_completion()
 >  > >  >
 >  > >  > So you don't see the work done in the times accounted to your test
 >  > >  > program. But in practice the flush worker is indeed burning 1.3s worth of
 >  > >  > CPU to scan the 1 million inode list and do nothing.
 >  > >  >
 >  > >
 >  > > That makes sense. However, in real container use case,  the upper dir is always empty,
 >  > > so I don't think there is meaningful difference compare to accurately marking overlay
 >  > > inode dirty.
 >  > >
 >  > 
 >  > It's true the that is a very common case, but...
 >  > 
 >  > > I'm not very familiar with other use cases of overlayfs except container, should we consider
 >  > > other use cases? Maybe we can also ignore the cpu burden because those use cases don't
 >  > > have density deployment like container.
 >  > >
 >  > 
 >  > metacopy feature was developed for the use case of a container
 >  > that chowns all the files in the lower image.
 >  > 
 >  > In that case, which is now also quite common, all the overlay inodes are
 >  > upper inodes.
 >  > 
 > 
 > Regardless of metacopy or datacopy, that copy-up has already modified overlay inode
 > so initialy marking dirty to all overlay inodes which have upper inode will not be a serious
 > problem in this case too, right?
 > 
 > I guess maybe you more concern about the re-mark dirtiness on above use case.
 > 
 > 
 > 
 >  > What about only re-mark overlay inode dirty if upper inode is dirty or is
 >  > writeably mmapped.
 >  > For other cases, it is easy to know when overlay inode becomes dirty?
 >  > Didn't you already try this?
 >  > 
 > 
 > Yes, I've tried that approach in previous version but as Miklos pointed out in the
 > feedback there are a few of racy conditions.
 > 

So the final solution to handle all the concerns looks like accurately mark overlay inode
diry on modification and re-mark dirty only for mmaped file in ->write_inode().

Hi Miklos, Jan

Will you agree with new proposal above?



Thanks,
Chengguang