Re: [PATCH] VFS/BTRFS/NFSD: provide more unique inode number for btrfs export
From: NeilBrown <hidden>
Date: 2021-08-15 21:54:08
Also in:
linux-btrfs, linux-fsdevel
On Mon, 16 Aug 2021, kreijack@inwind.it wrote:
On 8/15/21 9:35 PM, Roman Mamedov wrote:quoted
On Sun, 15 Aug 2021 09:39:08 +0200 Goffredo Baroncelli [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
I am sure that it was discussed already but I was unable to find any track of this discussion. But if the problem is the collision between the inode number of different subvolume in the nfd export, is it simpler if the export is truncated to the subvolume boundary ? It would be more coherent with the current behavior of vfs+nfsd.See this bugreport thread which started it all: https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg111172.html In there the reporting user replied that it is strongly not feasible for them to export each individual snapshot.Thanks for pointing that. However looking at the 'exports' man page, it seems that NFS has already an option to cover these cases: 'crossmnt'. If NFSd detects a "child" filesystem (i.e. a filesystem mounted inside an already exported one) and the "parent" filesystem is marked as 'crossmnt', the client mount the parent AND the child filesystem with two separate mounts, so there is not problem of inode collision.
As you acknowledged, you haven't read the whole back-story. Maybe you should. https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nfs/20210613115313.BC59.409509F4@e16-tech.com/ (local) https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nfs/162848123483.25823.15844774651164477866.stgit@noble.brown/ (local) https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/162742539595.32498.13687924366155737575.stgit@noble.brown/ (local) The flow of conversation does sometimes jump between threads. I'm very happy to respond you questions after you've absorbed all that. NeilBrown