Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.38 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.38;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <cover.1696043833.git.kjlx@templeofstupid.com> <45778432fba32dce1fb1f5fd13272c89c95c3f52.1696043833.git.kjlx@templeofstupid.com>
 <CAJfpegtOdqeK34CYvBTuVwOzcyZG8hnusiYO05JdbATOxfVMOg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20231010023507.GA1983@templeofstupid.com> <CAJfpegvr0cHj53jSPyBxVZnMpReq_RFhT-P1jv8eUu4pqxt9HA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20231011012545.GA1977@templeofstupid.com> <CAJfpegukL5bj6U0Kvvw_uTW1jstoD2DTLM7kByx2HAhOP02HEg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20231011163220.GA1970@templeofstupid.com>
In-Reply-To: <20231011163220.GA1970@templeofstupid.com>
From:   Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
Date:   Wed, 11 Oct 2023 20:27:34 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJfpegtzyUhcVbYrLG5Uhdur9fPxtdvxyYhFzCBf9Q8v6fK3Ow@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [resend PATCH v2 2/2] fuse: ensure that submounts lookup their parent
To:     Krister Johansen <kjlx@templeofstupid.com>
Cc:     linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@redhat.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        German Maglione <gmaglione@redhat.com>,
        Greg Kurz <groug@kaod.org>, Max Reitz <mreitz@redhat.com>,
        Bernd Schubert <bernd.schubert@fastmail.fm>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 at 18:32, Krister Johansen <kjlx@templeofstupid.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 09:07:33AM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 at 03:26, Krister Johansen <kjlx@templeofstupid.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I am curious what you have in mind in order to move this towards a
> > > proper fix?  I shied away from the approach of stealing a nlookup from
> > > mp_fi beacuse it wasn't clear that I could always count on the nlookup
> > > in the parent staying positive.  E.g. I was afraid I was either going to
> > > not have enough nlookups to move to submounts, or trigger a forget from
> > > an exiting container that leads to an EBADF from the initial mount
> > > namespace.
> >
> > One idea is to transfer the nlookup to a separately refcounted object
> > that is referenced from mp_fi as well as all the submounts.
>
> That seems possible.  Would the idea be to move all tracking of nlookup
> to a separate refcounted object for the particular nodeid, or just do
> this for the first lookup of a submount?

Just for submounts.  And yes, it should work if the count from the
first lookup is transferred to this object (fuse_iget()) and
subsequent counts (fuse_dentry_revalidate()) go to the mountpoint
inode as usual.  This will result in more than one FORGET in most
cases, but that's okay.

> Would you like me to put together a v3 that heads this direction?

That would be great, thanks.

Miklos