Re: fsnotify path hooks
From: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
Date: 2021-03-31 21:00:43
Also in:
linux-fsdevel
On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 5:06 PM Amir Goldstein [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
quoted
As long as "exp_export: export of idmapped mounts not yet supported.\n" I don't think it matters much. It feels like adding idmapped mounts to nfsd is on your roadmap. When you get to that we can discuss adding fsnotify path hooks to nfsd if Jan agrees to the fsnotify path hooks concept.I was looking at the patch and thinking about it for a few days already. I think that generating fsnotify event later (higher up the stack where we have mount information) is fine and a neat idea. I just dislike the hackery with dentry flags.Me as well. I used this hack for fast POC. If we stick with the dual hooks approach, we will have to either pass a new argument to vfs helpers or use another trick: Convert all the many calls sites that were converted by Christian to: vfs_XXX(&init_user_ns, ... because they do not have mount context, to: vfs_XXX(NULL, ... Inside the vfs helpers, use init_user_ns when mnt_userns is NULL, but pass the original mnt_userns argument to fsnotify_ns_XXX hooks. A non-NULL mnt_userns arg means "path_notify" context. I have already POC code for passing mnt_userns to fsnotify hooks [1]. I did not check if this assumption always works, but there seems to be a large overlap between idmapped aware callers and use cases that will require sending events to a mount mark.
The above "trick" is pretty silly as I believe Christian intends to fix all those call sites that pass init_user_ns.
quoted
Also I'm somewhat uneasy that it is random (from userspace POV) when path event is generated and when not (at least that's my impression from the patch - maybe I'm wrong). How difficult would it be to get rid of it? I mean what if we just moved say fsnotify_create() call wholly up the stack? It would mean more explicit calls to fsnotify_create() from filesystems - as far as I'm looking nfsd, overlayfs, cachefiles, ecryptfs. But that would seem to be manageable. Also, to maintain sanity,1. I don't think we can do that for all the fsnotify_create() hooks, such as debugfs for example 2. It is useless to pass the mount from overlayfs to fsnotify, its a private mount that users cannot set a mark on anyway and Christian has promised to propose the same change for cachefiles and ecryptfs, so I think it's not worth the churn in those call sites 3. I am uneasy with removing the fsnotify hooks from vfs helpers and trusting that new callers of vfs_create() will remember to add the high level hooks, so I prefer the existing behavior remains for such callers
So I read your proposal the wrong way.
You meant move fsnotify_create() up *without* passing mount context
from overlayfs and friends.
So yeh, I do think it is manageable. I think the best solution would be
something along the lines of wrappers like the following:
static inline int vfs_mkdir(...)
{
int error = __vfs_mkdir_nonotify(...);
if (!error)
fsnotify_mkdir(dir, dentry);
return error;
}
And then the few call sites that call the fsnotify_path_ hooks
(i.e. in syscalls and perhaps later in nfsd) will call the
__vfs_xxx_nonotify() variant.
I suppose that with this approach I could make all the relevant events
available for mount mark with relatively little churn.
I will try it out.
Thanks,
Amir.