Re: [PATCH 13/17] watch_queue: Implement mount topology and attribute change notifications [ver #5]

On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 1:39 PM Ian Kent [off-list ref] wrote:

On Mon, 2020-08-03 at 11:29 +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 12:48 PM David Howells [off-list ref]
wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

                __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
condition above).

Thanks,
Miklos

Thanks,

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

        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