On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 10:18:03AM +0100, Greg Kurz wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 14:09:47 -0500
> Vivek Goyal <vgo...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 01:56:08PM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 01:27:22PM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 02:58:20PM +0100, Greg Kurz wrote:
> > > > > This adds the missing bits to support FUSE_SYNCFS in the case
> > > > > submounts
> > > > > aren't announced to the client.
> > > > >
> > > > > Iterate over all inodes and call syncfs() on the ones marked as
> > > > > submounts.
> > > > > Since syncfs() can block for an indefinite time, we cannot call it
> > > > > with
> > > > > lo->mutex held as it would prevent the server to process other
> > > > > requests.
> > > > > This is thus broken down in two steps. First build a list of submounts
> > > > > with lo->mutex held, drop the mutex and finally process the list. A
> > > > > reference is taken on the inodes to ensure they don't go away when
> > > > > lo->mutex is dropped.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Greg Kurz <gr...@kaod.org>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c | 38
> > > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> > > > > 1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c
> > > > > b/tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c
> > > > > index e94c4e6f8635..7ce944bfe2a0 100644
> > > > > --- a/tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c
> > > > > +++ b/tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c
> > > > > @@ -3400,8 +3400,42 @@ static void lo_syncfs(fuse_req_t req,
> > > > > fuse_ino_t ino)
> > > > > err = lo_do_syncfs(lo, inode);
> > > > > lo_inode_put(lo, &inode);
> > > > > } else {
> > > > > - /* Requires the sever to track submounts. Not implemented
> > > > > yet */
> > > > > - err = ENOSYS;
> > > > > + g_autoptr(GSList) submount_list = NULL;
> > > > > + GSList *elem;
> > > > > + GHashTableIter iter;
> > > > > + gpointer key, value;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + pthread_mutex_lock(&lo->mutex);
> > > > > +
> > > > > + g_hash_table_iter_init(&iter, lo->inodes);
> > > > > + while (g_hash_table_iter_next(&iter, &key, &value)) {
> > > >
> > > > Going through all the inodes sounds very inefficient. If there are large
> > > > number of inodes (say 1 million or more), and if frequent syncfs
> > > > requests
> > > > are coming this can consume lot of cpu cycles.
> > > >
> > > > Given C virtiofsd is slowly going away, so I don't want to be too
> > > > particular about it. But, I would have thought to put submount
> > > > inodes into another list or hash map (using mount id as key) and just
> > > > traverse through that list instead. Given number of submounts should
> > > > be small, it should be pretty quick to walk through that list.
> > > >
> > > > > + struct lo_inode *inode = value;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + if (inode->is_submount) {
> > > > > + g_atomic_int_inc(&inode->refcount);
> > > > > + submount_list = g_slist_prepend(submount_list,
> > > > > inode);
> > > > > + }
> > > > > + }
> > > > > +
> > > > > + pthread_mutex_unlock(&lo->mutex);
> > > > > +
> > > > > + /* The root inode is always present and not tracked in the
> > > > > hash table */
> > > > > + err = lo_do_syncfs(lo, &lo->root);
> > > > > +
> > > > > + for (elem = submount_list; elem; elem = g_slist_next(elem)) {
> > > > > + struct lo_inode *inode = elem->data;
> > > > > + int r;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + r = lo_do_syncfs(lo, inode);
> > > > > + if (r) {
> > > > > + /*
> > > > > + * Try to sync as much as possible. Only one error
> > > > > can be
> > > > > + * reported to the client though, arbitrarily the
> > > > > last one.
> > > > > + */
> > > > > + err = r;
> > > > > + }
> > > > > + lo_inode_put(lo, &inode);
> > > > > + }
> > > >
> > > > One more minor nit. What happens if virtiofsd is processing syncfs list
> > > > and then somebody hard reboots qemu and mounts virtiofs again. That
> > > > will trigger FUSE_INIT and will call lo_destroy() first.
> > > >
> > > > fuse_lowlevel.c
> > > >
> > > > fuse_session_process_buf_int()
> > > > {
> > > > fuse_log(FUSE_LOG_DEBUG, "%s: reinit\n", __func__);
> > > > se->got_destroy = 1;
> > > > se->got_init = 0;
> > > > if (se->op.destroy) {
> > > > se->op.destroy(se->userdata);
> > > > }
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > IIUC, there is no synchronization with this path. If we are running with
> > > > thread pool enabled, it could very well happen that one thread is still
> > > > doing syncfs while other thread is executing do_init(). That sounds
> > > > like little bit of a problem. It will be good if there is a way
> > > > to either abort syncfs() or do_destroy() waits for all the previous
> > > > syncfs() to finish.
> > > >
> > > > Greg, if you like, you could break down this work in two patch series.
> > > > First patch series just issues syncfs() on inode id sent with
> > > > FUSE_SYNCFS.
> > > > That's easy fix and can get merged now.
> > >
> > > Actually I think even single "syncfs" will have synchronization issue
> > > with do_init() upon hard reboot if we drop lo->mutex during syncfs().
> >
> > Actually, we have similar issues with ->fsync(). We take lo->mutex,
> > and then take a reference on inode. Call fsync() on this. Now it is
> > possible that guest hard reboots, triggers, FUSE_INIT and lo_destroy()
> > is called. It will take lo->mutex and drop its referene on inode.
> >
> > So it looks like in extreme case a new connection can start looking
> > up inodes which we still have old inodes in hash table because
> > some thread is blocked doing operation and has not dropped its
> > reference.
> >
> > David, do I understand it right?
> >
> > We probably need to have a notion of keeping track of number of requests
> > which are in progress. And lo_destroy() should wait till number of
> > requests in progress come to zero. This will be equivalent of draining
> > the queues operation in virtiofs kernel driver.
> >
> > Anyway, given we already have the issue w.r.t lo_destroy(), and C code
> > is going away, I will be fine even if you don't fix races with FUSE_INIT.
> >
> > Vivek
>
> As you pointed out, this can affect other type of requests as well, so
> this would probably deserve a more generic fix than just making it
> work for syncfs(). This would most likely call for cycles that I don't
> have. Thanks ! ;-)
>
> BTW, does the rust implementation have the same flaw ?
I don't think Rust implementation drops any locks at all while syncfs()
is called. So next FUSE_INIT might just serialize completely and
wait for syncfs() to finish first. But don't quote me on this because
I don't understand rust virtiofsd locking well yet. It is more of a
guess.
Vivek
>
> > >
> > > Vivek
> > >
> > > >
> > > > And second patch series take care of above issues and will be little bit
> > > > more work.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > > Vivek
> >
>
