Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753884Ab0DUJwd (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Apr 2010 05:52:33 -0400 Received: from mail2.shareable.org ([80.68.89.115]:56996 "EHLO mail2.shareable.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753807Ab0DUJwb (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Apr 2010 05:52:31 -0400 Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 10:52:21 +0100 From: Jamie Lokier To: Miklos Szeredi Cc: jblunck@suse.de, vaurora@redhat.com, dwmw2@infradead.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, tytso@mit.edu, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/35] fallthru: ext2 fallthru support Message-ID: <20100421095221.GD13114@shareable.org> References: <1271682168.14748.718.camel@macbook.infradead.org> <20100419132344.GI10776@bolzano.suse.de> <20100419133028.GA3631@shareable.org> <20100419141248.GK10776@bolzano.suse.de> <20100419142315.GA2688@shell> <20100420213450.GM11723@shareable.org> <20100421084211.GB22741@bolzano.suse.de> <20100421092235.GB13114@shareable.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3351 Lines: 73 Miklos Szeredi wrote: > On Wed, 21 Apr 2010, Jamie Lokier wrote: > > Hmm. I smell potential confusion for some otherwise POSIX-friendly > > userspaces. > > > > When I open /path/to/foo, call fstat (st_dev=2, st_ino=5678), and then > > keep the file open, then later do a readdir which includes foo > > (dir.st_dev=1, d_ino=1234), I'm going to immediately assume a rename > > or unlink happened, close the file, abort streaming from it, refresh > > the GUI windows, refresh application caches for that name entry, etc. > > > > Because in the POSIX world I think open files have stable inode > > numbers (as long as they are open), and I don't think that an open > > file can have it's name's d_ino not match the inode number unless it's > > a mount point, which my program would know about. > > > > This plays into inotify, where you have to know if you are monitoring > > every directory that contains a link to a file, to know if you need to > > monitor the file itself directly instead. > > > > Now I think it's fair enough that a union mount doesn't play all the > > traditional rules :-) C'est la vie. > > > > This mismatch of (dir.st_dev,d_ino) and st_ino strongly resembles a > > file-bind-mount. Like bind mounts, it's quite annoying for programs > > that like to assume they've seen all of a file's links when they've > > seen i_nlink of them. > > > > Bind mounts can be detected by looking in /proc/mounts. st_dev > > changing doesn't work because it can be a binding of the same > > filesystem. > > > > How would I go about detecting when a union mount's directory entry > > has similar behaviour, without calling stat() on each entry? Is it > > just a matter of recognising a particular filesystem name in > > /proc/mounts, or something more? > > Detecting mount points is best done by comparing st_dev for the parent > directory with st_dev of the child. This is much simpler than parsing > /proc/mounts and will work for bind mounts as well as union mounts. Sorry, no: That does not work for bind mounts. Both layers can have the same st_dev. Nor does O_NOFOLLOW stop traversal in the middle of a path, there is no handy O_NOCROSSMOUNTS, and no st_mode flag or d_type to say it's a bind mount. Bind mounts are really a big pain for i_nlink+inotify name counting. Besides, calling stat() on every entry in a large directory to check st_ino can be orders of magnitude slower than readdir() on a large directory - especially with a cold cache. It is quicker, but much more complicated, to parse /proc/mounts and apply arcane rules to find the exceptions. Can a union mount overlap two parts of the same filesystem? > I think there's no question that union mounts might break apps (POSIX > or not). But I think there's hope that they are few and can easily be > fixed. I agree, and union moint is a very useful feature that's worth breaking a few apps for :-) I'm curious if there's a clear way to go about it in this case, or if it'll involve a certain amount of pattern recognition in /proc/mounts. Basically I'm wondering if it's been thought about already. -- Jamie -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/