Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAOQ4uxjQdLrZXkpP30Pq_=Cckcb=mADrEwQUXmsG92r-gn2y5w@mail.gmail.com>
 <379106947f859bdf5db4c6f9c4ab8c44f7423c08.camel@kernel.org>
 <CAOQ4uxgewN=j3ju5MSowEvwhK1HqKG3n1hBRUQTi1W5asaO1dQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <930108f76b89c93b2f1847003d9e060f09ba1a17.camel@kernel.org>
 <CAOQ4uxgQsRaEOxz1aYzP1_1fzRpQbOm2-wuzG=ABAphPB=7Mxg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190426140023.GB25827@fieldses.org> <CAOQ4uxhuxoEsoBbvenJ8eLGstPc4AH-msrxDC-tBFRhvDxRSNg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190426145006.GD25827@fieldses.org> <e69d149c80187b84833fec369ad8a51247871f26.camel@kernel.org>
 <CAOQ4uxjt+MkufaJWoqWSYZbejWa1nJEe8YYRroEBSb1jHjzkwQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <8504a05f2b0462986b3a323aec83a5b97aae0a03.camel@kernel.org>
 <CAOQ4uxi6fQdp_RQKHp-i6Q-m-G1+384_DafF3QzYcUq4guLd6w@mail.gmail.com> <1d5265510116ece75d6eb7af6314e6709e551c6e.camel@hammerspace.com>
In-Reply-To: <1d5265510116ece75d6eb7af6314e6709e551c6e.camel@hammerspace.com>
From:   Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 28 Apr 2019 18:00:32 -0400
Message-ID: <CAOQ4uxjUBRt99efZMY8EV6SAH+9eyf6t82uQuKWHQ56yjpjqMw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Better interop for NFS/SMB file share mode/reservation
To:     Trond Myklebust <trondmy@hammerspace.com>
Cc:     "jlayton@kernel.org" <jlayton@kernel.org>,
        "bfields@fieldses.org" <bfields@fieldses.org>,
        "samba-technical@lists.samba.org" <samba-technical@lists.samba.org>,
        "linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Volker.Lendecke@sernet.de" <Volker.Lendecke@sernet.de>,
        "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "pshilov@microsoft.com" <pshilov@microsoft.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Apr 28, 2019 at 11:06 AM Trond Myklebust
<trondmy@hammerspace.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2019-04-28 at 09:45 -0400, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 28, 2019 at 8:09 AM Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
> > wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2019-04-27 at 16:16 -0400, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > > > [adding back samba/nfs and fsdevel]
> > > >
> > >
> > > cc'ing Pavel too -- he did a bunch of work in this area a few years
> > > ago.
> > >
> > > > On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 6:22 PM Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, 2019-04-26 at 10:50 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > > > > > On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 04:11:00PM +0200, Amir Goldstein
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 26, 2019, 4:00 PM J. Bruce Fields <
> > > > > > > bfields@fieldses.org> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > That said, we could also look at a vfs-level mount option that
> > > > > would
> > > > > make the kernel enforce these for any opener. That could also
> > > > > be useful,
> > > > > and shouldn't be too hard to implement. Maybe even make it a
> > > > > vfsmount-
> > > > > level option (like -o ro is).
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yeh, I am humbly going to leave this struggle to someone else.
> > > > Not important enough IMO and completely independent effort to the
> > > > advisory atomic open&lock API.
> > >
> > > Having the kernel allow setting deny modes on any open call is a
> > > non-
> > > starter, for the reasons Bruce outlined earlier. This _must_ be
> > > restricted in some fashion or we'll be opening up a ginormous DoS
> > > mechanism.
> > >
> > > My proposal was to make this only be enforced by applications that
> > > explicitly opt-in by setting O_SH*/O_EX* flags. It wouldn't be too
> > > difficult to also allow them to be enforced on a per-fs basis via
> > > mount
> > > option or something. Maybe we could expand the meaning of '-o mand'
> > > ?
> > >
> > > How would you propose that we restrict this?
> > >
> >
> > Our communication channel is broken.
> > I did not intend to propose any implicit locking.
> > If samba and nfsd can opt-in with O_SHARE flags, I do not
> > understand why a mount option is helpful for the cause of
> > samba/nfsd interop.
> >
> > If someone else is interested in samba/local interop than
> > yes, a mount option like suggested by Pavel could be a good option,
> > but it is an orthogonal effort IMO.
>
> If an NFS client 'opts in' to set share deny, then that still makes it
> a non-optional lock for the other NFS clients, because all ordinary
> open() calls will be gated by the server whether or not their
> application specifies the O_SHARE flag. There is no flag in the NFS
> protocol that could tell the server to ignore deny modes.
>
> IOW: it would suffice for 1 client to use O_SHARE|O_DENY* to opt all
> the other clients in.
>

Sorry for being thick, I don't understand if we are in agreement or not.

My understanding is that the network file server implementations
(i.e. samba, knfds, Ganesha) will always use share/deny modes.
So for example nfs v3 opens will always use O_DENY_NONE
in order to have correct interop with samba and nfs v4.

If I am misunderstanding something, please enlighten me.
If there is a reason why mount option is needed for the sole purpose
of interop between network filesystem servers, please enlighten me.

Thanks,
Amir.