Linux-Fsdevel Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Miklos Szeredi <email@example.com>
To: Ian Kent <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: David Howells <email@example.com>,
Linus Torvalds <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Al Viro <email@example.com>,
Casey Schaufler <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Stephen Smalley <email@example.com>,
Nicolas Dichtel <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Christian Brauner <email@example.com>,
firstname.lastname@example.org, Jeff Layton <email@example.com>,
firstname.lastname@example.org, Karel Zak <email@example.com>,
firstname.lastname@example.org, Linux API <email@example.com>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/17] watch_queue: Implement mount topology and attribute change notifications [ver #5]
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2020 15:19:05 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJfpeguFkDDhz7+70pSUv_j=xY5L08ESpaE+jER9vE5p+ZmfFw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 1:39 PM Ian Kent <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 2020-08-03 at 11:29 +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 12:48 PM David Howells <email@example.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > __u32 topology_changes;
> > > > > __u32 attr_changes;
> > > > > __u32 aux_topology_changes;
> > > >
> > > > Being 32bit this introduces wraparound effects. Is that really
> > > > worth it?
> > >
> > > You'd have to make 2 billion changes without whoever's monitoring
> > > getting a
> > > chance to update their counters. But maybe it's not worth it
> > > putting them
> > > here. If you'd prefer, I can make the counters all 64-bit and just
> > > retrieve
> > > them with fsinfo().
> > Yes, I think that would be preferable.
> I think this is the source of the recommendation for removing the
> change counters from the notification message, correct?
> While it looks like I may not need those counters for systemd message
> buffer overflow handling myself I think removing them from the
> notification message isn't a sensible thing to do.
> If you need to detect missing messages, perhaps due to message buffer
> overflow, then you need change counters that are relevant to the
> notification message itself. That's so the next time you get a message
> for that object you can be sure that change counter comparisons you
> you make relate to object notifications you have processed.
I don't quite get it. Change notification is just that: a
notification. You need to know what object that notification relates
to, to be able to retrieve the up to date attributes of said object.
What happens if you get a change counter N in the notification
message, then get a change counter N + 1 in the attribute retrieval?
You know that another change happened, and you haven't yet processed
the notification yet. So when the notification with N + 1 comes in,
you can optimize away the attribute retrieve.
Nice optimization, but it's optimizing a race condition, and I don't
think that's warranted. I don't see any other use for the change
counter in the notification message.
> Yes, I know it isn't quite that simple, but tallying up what you have
> processed in the current batch of messages (or in multiple batches of
> messages if more than one read has been possible) to perform the check
> is a user space responsibility. And it simply can't be done if the
> counters consistency is in question which it would be if you need to
> perform another system call to get it.
> It's way more useful to have these in the notification than obtainable
> via fsinfo() IMHO.
What is it useful for?
If the notification itself would contain the list of updated
attributes and their new values, then yes, this would make sense. If
the notification just tells us that the object was modified, but not
the modifications themselves, then I don't see how the change counter
in itself could add any information (other than optimizing the race
> > > > > n->watch.info & NOTIFY_MOUNT_IS_RECURSIVE if true
> > > > > indicates that
> > > > > the notifcation was generated by an event (eg. SETATTR)
> > > > > that was
> > > > > applied recursively. The notification is only
> > > > > generated for the
> > > > > object that initially triggered it.
> > > >
> > > > Unused in this patchset. Please don't add things to the API
> > > > which are not
> > > > used.
> > >
> > > Christian Brauner has patches for mount_setattr() that will need to
> > > use this.
> > Fine, then that patch can add the flag.
> > Thanks,
> > Miklos
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-08-04 13:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 45+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-03-18 15:03 [PATCH 00/17] pipe: Keyrings, mount and superblock " David Howells
2020-03-18 15:03 ` [PATCH 01/17] uapi: General notification queue definitions " David Howells
2020-03-18 15:03 ` [PATCH 02/17] security: Add hooks to rule on setting a watch " David Howells
2020-03-18 18:56 ` James Morris
2020-03-18 15:03 ` [PATCH 03/17] security: Add a hook for the point of notification insertion " David Howells
2020-03-18 18:57 ` James Morris
2020-03-18 15:03 ` [PATCH 04/17] pipe: Add O_NOTIFICATION_PIPE " David Howells
2020-03-18 15:03 ` [PATCH 05/17] pipe: Add general notification queue support " David Howells
2020-03-18 15:04 ` [PATCH 06/17] watch_queue: Add a key/keyring notification facility " David Howells
2020-03-18 19:04 ` James Morris
2020-03-18 15:04 ` [PATCH 07/17] Add sample notification program " David Howells
2020-03-18 15:04 ` [PATCH 08/17] pipe: Allow buffers to be marked read-whole-or-error for notifications " David Howells
2020-03-18 15:04 ` [PATCH 09/17] pipe: Add notification lossage handling " David Howells
2020-03-18 15:04 ` [PATCH 10/17] selinux: Implement the watch_key security hook " David Howells
2020-03-18 19:06 ` James Morris
2020-03-18 15:04 ` [PATCH 11/17] smack: Implement the watch_key and post_notification hooks " David Howells
2020-03-18 15:05 ` [PATCH 12/17] watch_queue: Add security hooks to rule on setting mount and sb watches " David Howells
2020-03-18 19:07 ` James Morris
2020-03-18 15:05 ` [PATCH 13/17] watch_queue: Implement mount topology and attribute change notifications " David Howells
2020-04-02 15:19 ` Miklos Szeredi
2020-06-14 3:07 ` Ian Kent
2020-06-15 8:44 ` Miklos Szeredi
2020-07-23 10:48 ` David Howells
2020-08-03 9:29 ` Miklos Szeredi
2020-08-04 11:38 ` Ian Kent
2020-08-04 13:19 ` Miklos Szeredi [this message]
2020-08-05 1:53 ` Ian Kent
2020-08-05 7:43 ` Miklos Szeredi
2020-08-05 11:36 ` Ian Kent
2020-08-05 11:56 ` Miklos Szeredi
2020-07-24 10:19 ` David Howells
2020-07-24 10:44 ` Ian Kent
2020-07-24 11:36 ` David Howells
2020-08-03 10:02 ` Miklos Szeredi
2020-08-03 10:08 ` David Howells
2020-08-03 10:18 ` David Howells
2020-08-03 11:17 ` Miklos Szeredi
2020-08-03 11:49 ` David Howells
2020-08-03 12:01 ` Ian Kent
2020-08-03 12:31 ` David Howells
2020-08-03 14:30 ` Ian Kent
2020-03-18 15:05 ` [PATCH 14/17] watch_queue: sample: Display mount tree " David Howells
2020-03-18 15:05 ` [PATCH 15/17] watch_queue: Introduce a non-repeating system-unique superblock ID " David Howells
2020-03-18 15:05 ` [PATCH 16/17] watch_queue: Add superblock notifications " David Howells
2020-03-18 15:05 ` [PATCH 17/17] watch_queue: sample: Display " David Howells
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--subject='Re: [PATCH 13/17] watch_queue: Implement mount topology and attribute change notifications [ver #5]' \
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).