Message-ID: <CAOQ4uxg=1zSyTBZ-0_q=5PVuqs=4yQiMQJr1tNk7Kytxv=vuvA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 6 Feb 2023 19:16:44 +0200
From:   Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>
To:     Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc:     Alexander Larsson <alexl@...hat.com>, gscrivan@...hat.com,
        brauner@...nel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, david@...morbit.com,
        viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
        Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>,
        Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        Jingbo Xu <jefflexu@...ux.alibaba.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/6] Composefs: an opportunistically sharing verified
 image filesystem

On Mon, Feb 6, 2023 at 6:34 PM Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 at 14:31, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > My little request again, could you help benchmark on your real workload
> > > > > rather than "ls -lR" stuff?  If your hard KPI is really what as you
> > > > > said, why not just benchmark the real workload now and write a detailed
> > > > > analysis to everyone to explain it's a _must_ that we should upstream
> > > > > a new stacked fs for this?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I agree that benchmarking the actual KPI (boot time) will have
> > > > a much stronger impact and help to build a much stronger case
> > > > for composefs if you can prove that the boot time difference really matters.
> > > >
> > > > In order to test boot time on fair grounds, I prepared for you a POC
> > > > branch with overlayfs lazy lookup:
> > > > https://github.com/amir73il/linux/commits/ovl-lazy-lowerdata
> > >
> > > Sorry about being late to the party...
> > >
> > > Can you give a little detail about what exactly this does?
> > >
> >
> > Consider a container image distribution system, with base images
> > and derived images and instruction on how to compose these images
> > using overlayfs or other methods.
> >
> > Consider a derived image L3 that depends on images L2, L1.
> >
> > With the composefs methodology, the image distribution server splits
> > each image is split into metadata only (metacopy) images M3, M2, M1
> > and their underlying data images containing content addressable blobs
> > D3, D2, D1.
> >
> > The image distribution server goes on to merge the metadata layers
> > on the server, so U3 = M3 + M2 + M1.
> >
> > In order to start image L3, the container client will unpack the data layers
> > D3, D2, D1 to local fs normally, but the server merged U3 metadata image
> > will be distributed as a read-only fsverity signed image that can be mounted
> > by mount -t composefs U3.img (much like mount -t erofs -o loop U3.img).
> >
> > The composefs image format contains "redirect" instruction to the data blob
> > path and an fsverity signature that can be used to verify the redirected data
> > content.
> >
> > When composefs authors proposed to merge composefs, Gao and me
> > pointed out that the same functionality can be achieved with minimal changes
> > using erofs+overlayfs.
> >
> > Composefs authors have presented ls -lR time and memory usage benchmarks
> > that demonstrate how composefs performs better that erofs+overlayfs in
> > this workload and explained that the lookup of the data blobs is what takes
> > the extra time and memory in the erofs+overlayfs ls -lR test.
> >
> > The lazyfollow POC optimizes-out the lowerdata lookup for the ls -lR
> > benchmark, so that composefs could be compared to erofs+overlayfs.
>
> Got it, thanks.
>
> >
> > To answer Alexander's question:
> >
> > > Cool. I'll play around with this. Does this need to be an opt-in
> > > option in the final version? It feels like this could be useful to
> > > improve performance in general for overlayfs, for example when
> > > metacopy is used in container layers.
> >
> > I think lazyfollow could be enabled by default after we hashed out
> > all the bugs and corner cases and most importantly remove the
> > POC limitation of lower-only overlay.
> >
> > The feedback that composefs authors are asking from you
> > is whether you will agree to consider adding the "lazyfollow
> > lower data" optimization and "fsverity signature for metacopy"
> > feature to overlayfs?
> >
> > If you do agree, the I think they should invest their resources
> > in making those improvements to overlayfs and perhaps
> > other improvements to erofs, rather than proposing a new
> > specialized filesystem.
>
> Lazy follow seems to make sense.  Why does it need to be optional?

It doesn't.

> Does it have any advantage to *not* do lazy follow?
>

Not that I can think of.

> Not sure I follow the fsverity requirement.  For overlay+erofs case
> itsn't it enough to verify the erofs image?
>

it's not overlay{erofs+erofs}
it's overlay{erofs+ext4} (or another fs-verity [1] supporting fs)
the lower layer is a mutable fs with /objects/ dir containing
the blobs.

The way to ensure the integrity of erofs is to setup dm-verity at
erofs mount time.

The way to ensure the integrity of the blobs is to store an fs-verity
signature of each blob file in trusted.overlay.verify xattr on the
metacopy and for overlayfs to enable fsverity on the blob file before
allowing access to the lowerdata.

At least this is my understanding of the security model.

Thanks,
Amir.

[1] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/filesystems/fsverity.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists