| Message ID | cover.1568309119.git.fllinden@amazon.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | user xattr support (RFC8276) | expand |
Hi Frank- > On Sep 12, 2019, at 1:25 PM, Frank van der Linden <fllinden@amazon.com> wrote: > > This RFC patch series implements both client and server side support > for RFC8276 user extended attributes. > > The server side should be complete (except for modifications made > after comments, of course). The client side lacks caching. I am > working on that, but am not happy with my current implementation. > So I'm sending this out for input. Having a reviewed base to work > from will make adding client-side caching support easier to add, > in any case. > > Thanks for any input! This prototype looks very good. I have some general comments as I'm getting to know your code. I assume your end goal is to get this work merged into the upstream Linux kernel. First some comments about patch submission and review: - IMO you can post future updates just to linux-nfs. Note that the kernel NFS client and server are maintained separately, so when it comes time to submit final patches, you will send the client work to Trond and Anna, and the server work to Bruce (and maybe me). - We like patches that are as small as possible but no smaller. Some of these might be too small. For example, you don't need to add the XDR encoders, decoders, and reply size macros in separate patches. That might help get the total patch count down without reducing review-ability. I can help offline with other examples. - Please run scripts/checkpatch.pl on each patch before you post again. This will help identify coding convention issues that should be addressed before merge. sparse is also a good idea too. clang-format is also nice but is entirely optional. - I was not able to get 34/35 to apply. The series might be missing a patch that adds nfsd_getxattr and friends. - Do you have man page updates for the new mount and export options? Now some comments about code design: - I'm not clear why new CONFIG options are necessary. These days we try to avoid adding new CONFIG options if possible. I can't think of a reason someone would need to compile user xattr support out if NFSv4.2 is enabled. - Can you explain why an NFS server administrator might want to disable user xattr support on a share? - Probably you are correct that the design choices you made regarding multi-message LISTXATTR are the best that can be done. Hopefully that is not a frequent operation, but for something like "tar" it might be. Do you have any feeling for how to assess performance? - Regarding client caching... the RFC is notably vague about what is needed there. You might be able to get away with no caching, just as a start. Do you (and others) think that this series would be acceptable and mergeable without any client caching support? - Do you have access to an RDMA-capable platform? RPC/RDMA needs to be able to predict how large each reply will be, in order to reserve appropriate memory resources to land the whole RPC reply on the client. I'm wondering if you've found any particular areas where that might be a challenge. Testing: - Does fstests already have user xattr functional tests? If not, how do you envision testing this new code? - How should we test the logic that deals with delegation recall? - Do you have plans to submit patches to pyNFS? > Some notable issues: > > * RFC8276 explicitly only concerns itself with the user xattr namespace. > Linux is the only OS that encodes the namespace in the attribute name, > adding "user." for the user namespace. Others, like FreeBSD and MacOS, > pass the namespace as a system call argument. Since the "user." prefix > is specific to Linux, it is stripped off on the client side, and added > back on the server side. > > * Extended attributes tend to be small in size, but they may be somewhat > large. The Linux-imposed limit is 64k. The sunrpc XDR interfaces only > allow sizes > PAGE_SIZE to be encoded using pages. That works out > great for reads/writes, but since there are no page-based xattr > FS interfaces, it means some extra explicit copying. > > * A quirk of the Linux xattr implementation is that you can create > more extended attributes per file than listxattr can handle in > its maximum size, meaning that you get E2BIG back. There is no > 1-1 translation for that error to the LISTXATTR op. I chose to > return NFS4ERR_TOOSMALL (which is a valid error for the operation), > and have the client code check for it and return E2BIG. Not > great, but it seemed to be the best option. > > * The LISTXATTR op uses cookies to support multiple calls to retrieve > the complete list, like READDDIR. This means that there's the old > "how to deal with non-0 cookies" issue. > > In the vast majority of cases, LISTXATTR should not need multiple > calls. However, you never know what a client will do. READDIR > uses the cookie as a seek offset in to the directory. It's not > quite as simple with LISTXATTR. First, there is no seperate > FS interface to list only user xattrs. Which means that, based > on permissions, the buffer returned by vfs_listxattr might turn > out differently (e.g. if you have no permission to read some > system. attributes). That means that using just a hard offset > in to the buffer (with verifications) can't work, as its a > context-specific value, and the client couldn't cache it if > it wanted to. > > My code returns the attribute count as a cookie. The server > always asks vfs_listxattr for a XATTR_LIST_MAX buffer (see > below), and then starts XDR encoding at the Nth user xattr > attribute, where N is the cookie value. There are bounds > checks of course. > > This isn't great, but probably the best you can do. > > * There is no FS interface to only read user extended attributes, > and the server code needs to strip off the "user." prefix. > Additionally, the RFC specifies that the max length field for the > LISTXATTR op refers to the total XDR-encoded length. Given all > this, it is not possible to know what the length is it should pass > to vfs_listxattr. So it just passes an XATTR_LIST_MAX sized buffer > to vfs_listxattr, and then encodes as many user xattrs as it can > from the returned buffer. > > * Given that this is an extension to v4.2, it is only supported > if 4.2 is used (even though it has no dependencies on 4.2 > specific features). > > * There is a new mount option, already known for other filesystems, > "user_xattr", which must be passed explicitly as it stands > right now, together with vers=4.2 > > * There is a new export option to turn off extended attributes for > a filesystem. > > * Modifications outside of the NFS(D) code were minor. They were > all in the xattr code, to export versions of vfs_setxattr and > vfs_removexattr that the NFS code should use (inode rwsem taken > because of atomic change info), and to have them break delegations, > as specified by RFC8276. > > * As I mentioned, this has no client caching. I have one implementation, > but I'm not that happy with it. > > The main issue with client caching is that, for virtually all expected > cases, the number of user extended attributes per file will be small, > and their data small. But, theoretically, you can, within current Linux > limitations, create some 9000 user extended attributes per inode, each > 64k in size. > > My current implementation uses an inode LRU chain (much like the access > cache), and an rhashtable per inode (I picked rhashtables because > they automatically grow). This seems like overkill, though. > > If there are any suggestions on better implementations, I'll be happy > to take them. The client caching I mention here is not in this series, > as I need to clean it up a bit (and am not sure if I really want to use > it). But I can share it if asked. It will be in the next iteration, > in whatever shape or form it might take. > > Frank van der Linden (35): > nfsd: make sure the nfsd4_ops array has the right size > nfs/nfsd: basic NFS4 extended attribute definitions > NFSv4.2: query the server for extended attribute support > nfs: parse the {no}user_xattr option > NFSv4.2: define a function to compute the maximum XDR size for > listxattr > NFSv4.2: define and set initial limits for extended attributes > NFSv4.2: define argument and response structures for xattr operations > NFSv4.2: define the encode/decode sizes for the XATTR operations > NFSv4.2: define and use extended attribute overhead sizes > NFSv4.2: add client side XDR handling for extended attributes > nfs: define nfs_access_get_cached function > NFSv4.2: query the extended attribute access bits > nfs: modify update_changeattr to deal with regular files > nfs: define and use the NFS_INO_INVALID_XATTR flag > nfs: make the buf_to_pages_noslab function available to the nfs code > NFSv4.2: add the extended attribute proc functions. > NFSv4.2: hook in the user extended attribute handlers > NFSv4.2: add client side xattr caching functions > NFSv4.2: call the xattr cache functions > nfs: add the NFS_V4_XATTR config option > xattr: modify vfs_{set,remove}xattr for NFS server use > nfsd: split off the write decode code in to a seperate function > nfsd: add defines for NFSv4.2 extended attribute support > nfsd: define xattr functions to call in to their vfs counterparts > nfsd: take xattr access bits in to account when checking > nfsd: add structure definitions for xattr requests / responses > nfsd: implement the xattr procedure functions. > nfsd: define xattr reply size functions > nfsd: add xattr XDR decode functions > nfsd: add xattr XDR encode functions > nfsd: add xattr operations to ops array > xattr: add a function to check if a namespace is supported > nfsd: add fattr support for user extended attributes > nfsd: add export flag to disable user extended attributes > nfsd: add NFSD_V4_XATTR config option > > fs/nfs/Kconfig | 9 + > fs/nfs/Makefile | 1 + > fs/nfs/client.c | 17 +- > fs/nfs/dir.c | 24 +- > fs/nfs/inode.c | 7 +- > fs/nfs/internal.h | 24 ++ > fs/nfs/nfs42.h | 29 ++ > fs/nfs/nfs42proc.c | 242 ++++++++++++++ > fs/nfs/nfs42xattr.c | 72 ++++ > fs/nfs/nfs42xdr.c | 446 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ > fs/nfs/nfs4_fs.h | 5 + > fs/nfs/nfs4client.c | 31 ++ > fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c | 246 ++++++++++++-- > fs/nfs/nfs4super.c | 1 + > fs/nfs/nfs4xdr.c | 35 ++ > fs/nfs/nfstrace.h | 3 +- > fs/nfs/super.c | 11 + > fs/nfsd/Kconfig | 10 + > fs/nfsd/export.c | 1 + > fs/nfsd/nfs4proc.c | 145 +++++++- > fs/nfsd/nfs4xdr.c | 548 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- > fs/nfsd/nfsd.h | 13 +- > fs/nfsd/vfs.c | 153 +++++++++ > fs/nfsd/vfs.h | 10 + > fs/nfsd/xdr4.h | 31 ++ > fs/xattr.c | 90 ++++- > include/linux/nfs4.h | 27 +- > include/linux/nfs_fs.h | 6 + > include/linux/nfs_fs_sb.h | 7 + > include/linux/nfs_xdr.h | 62 +++- > include/linux/xattr.h | 4 + > include/uapi/linux/nfs4.h | 3 + > include/uapi/linux/nfs_fs.h | 1 + > include/uapi/linux/nfsd/export.h | 3 +- > 34 files changed, 2233 insertions(+), 84 deletions(-) > create mode 100644 fs/nfs/nfs42xattr.c > > -- > 2.17.2 > -- Chuck Lever chucklever@gmail.com
Hi Chuck, Thanks for your comments. On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 04:16:33PM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: > - IMO you can post future updates just to linux-nfs. Note that the > kernel NFS client and server are maintained separately, so when it > comes time to submit final patches, you will send the client work > to Trond and Anna, and the server work to Bruce (and maybe me). Sure, I'll do that. > > - We like patches that are as small as possible but no smaller. > Some of these might be too small. For example, you don't need to add > the XDR encoders, decoders, and reply size macros in separate patches. True, I might have gone overboard there :-) If you can send further suggestions offline, that'd be great! > - Please run scripts/checkpatch.pl on each patch before you post > again. This will help identify coding convention issues that should > be addressed before merge. sparse is also a good idea too. > clang-format is also nice but is entirely optional. No problem. I think there shouldn't be many issues, but I'm sure I mixed up some of the coding styles I've had to adhere to over the decades.. > > - I was not able to get 34/35 to apply. The series might be missing > a patch that adds nfsd_getxattr and friends. Hm, odd. I'll check on that - I might have messed up there. > > - Do you have man page updates for the new mount and export options? I don't, but I can easily write them. They go in nfs-utils, right? > - I'm not clear why new CONFIG options are necessary. These days we > try to avoid adding new CONFIG options if possible. I can't think of > a reason someone would need to compile user xattr support out if > NFSv4.2 is enabled. > > - Can you explain why an NFS server administrator might want to > disable user xattr support on a share? I think both of these are cases of being careful. E.g. don't enable something by default and allow it to be disabled at runtime in case something goes terribly wrong. I didn't have any other reasons, really. I'm happy do to away with the CONFIG options if that's the consensus, as well as the nouser_xattr export option. > - Probably you are correct that the design choices you made regarding > multi-message LISTXATTR are the best that can be done. Hopefully that > is not a frequent operation, but for something like "tar" it might be. > Do you have any feeling for how to assess performance? So far, my performance testing has been based on synthetic workloads, which I'm also using to test some boundary conditions. E.g. create as many xattrs as the Linux limit allows, list them all, now do this for many files, etc. I'll definitely add testing with code that uses xattrs. tar is on the list, but I'm happy to test anything that exercises the code. I don't think a multi-message LISTXATTR will happen a lot in practice, if at all. > > - Regarding client caching... the RFC is notably vague about what > is needed there. You might be able to get away with no caching, just > as a start. Do you (and others) think that this series would be > acceptable and mergeable without any client caching support? The performance is, obviously, not great without client side caching. But then again, that's on my synthetic workloads. In cases like GNU tar, it won't matter a whole lot because of the way that code is structured. I would prefer to have client side caching enabled from the start. I have an implementation that works, but, like I mentioned, I have some misgivings about it. But I should just include it when I re-post - I might simply be worrying too much. > > - Do you have access to an RDMA-capable platform? RPC/RDMA needs to > be able to predict how large each reply will be, in order to reserve > appropriate memory resources to land the whole RPC reply on the client. > I'm wondering if you've found any particular areas where that might be > a challenge. Hm. I might be able to set something up. If not, I'd be relying on someone you might know to test it for me :-) I am not too familiar with the RDMA RPC code. From what I posted, is there any specific part of how the RPC layer is used that would be of concern with RDMA? I don't do anything other parts of the code don't do. The only special case is using on-demand page allocation on receive, which the ACL code also does (XDRBUF_SPARSE_PAGES - used for LISTXATTR and GETXATTR). > > > Testing: > > - Does fstests already have user xattr functional tests? If not, how > do you envision testing this new code? https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/fs/xfs/xfstests-dev.git/ has some xattr tests. I've, so far, been using my own set of tests that I'm happy to contribute to any testsuite. > > - How should we test the logic that deals with delegation recall? I believe pyNFS has some logic do test this. What I have been doing is manual testing, either using 2 clients, or, simpler, setting xattrs on a file on the server itself, and verifying that client delegations were recalled. > > - Do you have plans to submit patches to pyNFS? It wasn't in my plans, but I certainly could. One issue I've noticed, with pyNFS and some other tests, is that they go no further than 4.1. They'll need some more work to do 4.2 - although that shouldn't be a lot of work, as most (or was it all?) features in 4.2 are optional. I've not had much time to work on this in the past few weeks, but next week is looking much better. Here's my plan: * address any issues flagged by checkpatch * merge some patches, with your input * clean up my nfs-ganesha patches and test some more against that * test against Rick's FreeBSD prototype * repost the series, split in to client and server In general, what do people do with code changes that affect both client and server (e.g. generic defines)? Thanks, - Frank
Hi Frank- > On Oct 24, 2019, at 7:15 PM, Frank van der Linden <fllinden@amazon.com> wrote: > > Hi Chuck, > > Thanks for your comments. > > On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 04:16:33PM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: >> - IMO you can post future updates just to linux-nfs. Note that the >> kernel NFS client and server are maintained separately, so when it >> comes time to submit final patches, you will send the client work >> to Trond and Anna, and the server work to Bruce (and maybe me). > > Sure, I'll do that. > >> >> - We like patches that are as small as possible but no smaller. >> Some of these might be too small. For example, you don't need to add >> the XDR encoders, decoders, and reply size macros in separate patches. > > True, I might have gone overboard there :-) If you can send further > suggestions offline, that'd be great! > >> - Please run scripts/checkpatch.pl on each patch before you post >> again. This will help identify coding convention issues that should >> be addressed before merge. sparse is also a good idea too. >> clang-format is also nice but is entirely optional. > > No problem. I think there shouldn't be many issues, but I'm sure > I mixed up some of the coding styles I've had to adhere to over > the decades.. > >> >> - I was not able to get 34/35 to apply. The series might be missing >> a patch that adds nfsd_getxattr and friends. > > Hm, odd. I'll check on that - I might have messed up there. > >> >> - Do you have man page updates for the new mount and export options? > > I don't, but I can easily write them. They go in nfs-utils, right? Yes. utils/mount/nfs.man for the mount option. >> - I'm not clear why new CONFIG options are necessary. These days we >> try to avoid adding new CONFIG options if possible. I can't think of >> a reason someone would need to compile user xattr support out if >> NFSv4.2 is enabled. >> >> - Can you explain why an NFS server administrator might want to >> disable user xattr support on a share? > > I think both of these are cases of being careful. E.g. don't enable > something by default and allow it to be disabled at runtime in > case something goes terribly wrong. > > I didn't have any other reasons, really. I'm happy do to away with > the CONFIG options if that's the consensus, as well as the > nouser_xattr export option. I have similar patches adding support for access to a couple of security xattrs. I initially wrapped the new code with CONFIG but after some discussion it was decided there was really no need to be so cautious. The user_xattr export option is a separate matter, but again, if we don't know of a use case for it, I would leave it out for the moment. >> - Probably you are correct that the design choices you made regarding >> multi-message LISTXATTR are the best that can be done. Hopefully that >> is not a frequent operation, but for something like "tar" it might be. >> Do you have any feeling for how to assess performance? > > So far, my performance testing has been based on synthetic workloads, > which I'm also using to test some boundary conditions. E.g. create > as many xattrs as the Linux limit allows, list them all, now do > this for many files, etc. I'll definitely add testing with code > that uses xattrs. tar is on the list, but I'm happy to test anything > that exercises the code. > > I don't think a multi-message LISTXATTR will happen a lot in practice, > if at all. > >> >> - Regarding client caching... the RFC is notably vague about what >> is needed there. You might be able to get away with no caching, just >> as a start. Do you (and others) think that this series would be >> acceptable and mergeable without any client caching support? > > The performance is, obviously, not great without client side caching. > But then again, that's on my synthetic workloads. In cases like GNU > tar, it won't matter a whole lot because of the way that code is > structured. > > I would prefer to have client side caching enabled from the start. > I have an implementation that works, but, like I mentioned, I > have some misgivings about it. But I should just include it when > I re-post - I might simply be worrying too much. After the patches are cleaner (checkpatch and squashing) I think you will get more direct review of the caching heuristics. I'll send some suggestions via private e-mail. >> - Do you have access to an RDMA-capable platform? RPC/RDMA needs to >> be able to predict how large each reply will be, in order to reserve >> appropriate memory resources to land the whole RPC reply on the client. >> I'm wondering if you've found any particular areas where that might be >> a challenge. > > Hm. I might be able to set something up. If not, I'd be relying > on someone you might know to test it for me :-) > > I am not too familiar with the RDMA RPC code. From what I posted, is > there any specific part of how the RPC layer is used that would > be of concern with RDMA? > > I don't do anything other parts of the code don't do. The only special > case is using on-demand page allocation on receive, which the ACL code > also does (XDRBUF_SPARSE_PAGES - used for LISTXATTR and GETXATTR). That's exactly what's of concern. RDMA has similar logic as TCP here to allocate pages on demand for this case. The problem arises when the server needs to return a bigger reply than will fit in this buffer. Rare. >> Testing: >> >> - Does fstests already have user xattr functional tests? If not, how >> do you envision testing this new code? > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/fs/xfs/xfstests-dev.git/ has some xattr > tests. I've, so far, been using my own set of tests that I'm happy > to contribute to any testsuite. fstests would be the one. >> - How should we test the logic that deals with delegation recall? > > I believe pyNFS has some logic do test this. What I have been doing > is manual testing, either using 2 clients, or, simpler, setting > xattrs on a file on the server itself, and verifying that client > delegations were recalled. > >> >> - Do you have plans to submit patches to pyNFS? > > It wasn't in my plans, but I certainly could. One issue I've noticed, > with pyNFS and some other tests, is that they go no further than 4.1. > They'll need some more work to do 4.2 - although that shouldn't be > a lot of work, as most (or was it all?) features in 4.2 are optional. OK, if v4.2 is not supported in the test suite, then there is a pre-requisite discussion to be had. > I've not had much time to work on this in the past few weeks, but > next week is looking much better. Here's my plan: > > * address any issues flagged by checkpatch > * merge some patches, with your input > * clean up my nfs-ganesha patches and test some more against that > * test against Rick's FreeBSD prototype > * repost the series, split in to client and server > > In general, what do people do with code changes that affect both > client and server (e.g. generic defines)? For generic defines, include the same patches in both the client and server series. When git merges the two separate branches, it should recognize that the incoming files are identical and do nothing. -- Chuck Lever chucklever@gmail.com
On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 03:55:09PM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: > > On Oct 24, 2019, at 7:15 PM, Frank van der Linden <fllinden@amazon.com> wrote: > > I think both of these are cases of being careful. E.g. don't enable > > something by default and allow it to be disabled at runtime in > > case something goes terribly wrong. > > > > I didn't have any other reasons, really. I'm happy do to away with > > the CONFIG options if that's the consensus, as well as the > > nouser_xattr export option. > > I have similar patches adding support for access to a couple of > security xattrs. I initially wrapped the new code with CONFIG > but after some discussion it was decided there was really no > need to be so cautious. > > The user_xattr export option is a separate matter, but again, > if we don't know of a use case for it, I would leave it out for > the moment. Agreed. Do ext4, xfs, etc. have an option to turn off xattrs? If so, maybe it would be good enough to turn off xattrs on the exported filesystem rathre than on the export. If not, maybe that's a sign that hasn't been a need. --b.
> On Nov 3, 2019, at 10:01 PM, bfields@fieldses.org wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 03:55:09PM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: >>> On Oct 24, 2019, at 7:15 PM, Frank van der Linden <fllinden@amazon.com> wrote: >>> I think both of these are cases of being careful. E.g. don't enable >>> something by default and allow it to be disabled at runtime in >>> case something goes terribly wrong. >>> >>> I didn't have any other reasons, really. I'm happy do to away with >>> the CONFIG options if that's the consensus, as well as the >>> nouser_xattr export option. >> >> I have similar patches adding support for access to a couple of >> security xattrs. I initially wrapped the new code with CONFIG >> but after some discussion it was decided there was really no >> need to be so cautious. >> >> The user_xattr export option is a separate matter, but again, >> if we don't know of a use case for it, I would leave it out for >> the moment. > > Agreed. > > Do ext4, xfs, etc. have an option to turn off xattrs? If so, maybe it > would be good enough to turn off xattrs on the exported filesystem > rather than on the export. Following the server's local file systems' mount options seems like a good way to go. In particular, is there a need to expose user xattrs on the server host, but prevent NFS clients' access to them? I can't think of one. > If not, maybe that's a sign that hasn't been a need. > > --b. -- Chuck Lever chucklever@gmail.com
On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 10:36:03AM -0500, Chuck Lever wrote: > > Following the server's local file systems' mount options seems like a > good way to go. In particular, is there a need to expose user xattrs > on the server host, but prevent NFS clients' access to them? I can't > think of one. Ok, that sounds fine to me - I'll remove the user_xattr export flag, and we had already agreed to do away with the CONFIGs. That leaves one last item with regard to enabling support: the client side mount option. I assume the [no]user_xattr option should work the same as with other filesystems. What about the default setting? Also, currently, my code does not fail the mount operation if user xattrs are asked for, but the server does not support them. It just doesn't set NFS_CAP_XATTR for the server, and the xattr handler entry points eturn -EOPNOTSUPP, as they check for NFS_CAP_XATTR. What's the preferred behavior there? - Frank
On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 04:21:47PM +0000, Frank van der Linden wrote: > On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 10:36:03AM -0500, Chuck Lever wrote: > > > > Following the server's local file systems' mount options seems like a > > good way to go. In particular, is there a need to expose user xattrs > > on the server host, but prevent NFS clients' access to them? I can't > > think of one. > > Ok, that sounds fine to me - I'll remove the user_xattr export flag, > and we had already agreed to do away with the CONFIGs. > > That leaves one last item with regard to enabling support: the client side > mount option. I assume the [no]user_xattr option should work the same as > with other filesystems. What about the default setting? Just checking code for other filesystems quickly; if I understand right: - ext4 has user_xattr and nouser_xattr options, but you get a deprecation warning if you try to use the latter; - xfs doesn't support either option; - cifs supports both, with xattr support the default. Not necessarily my call, but just for simplicity's sake, I'd probably leave out the option and see if anybody complains. > Also, currently, my code does not fail the mount operation if user xattrs > are asked for, but the server does not support them. It just doesn't > set NFS_CAP_XATTR for the server, and the xattr handler entry points > eturn -EOPNOTSUPP, as they check for NFS_CAP_XATTR. What's the preferred > behavior there? getxattr(2) under ERRORS says: ENOTSUP Extended attributes are not supported by the filesystem, or are disabled. so I'm guessing just erroring out is clearest. I also see there's an EOPNOTSUPP return in the nouser_xattr case in ext4_xattr_user_get. (errno(3) says ENOTSUP and EOPNOTSUPP are the same value on Linux.) --b.
On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 05:58:46PM -0500, Bruce Fields wrote: > Just checking code for other filesystems quickly; if I understand right: > > - ext4 has user_xattr and nouser_xattr options, but you get a > deprecation warning if you try to use the latter; > - xfs doesn't support either option; > - cifs supports both, with xattr support the default. > > Not necessarily my call, but just for simplicity's sake, I'd probably > leave out the option and see if anybody complains. Sounds good, I'll go with that. > > > Also, currently, my code does not fail the mount operation if user xattrs > > are asked for, but the server does not support them. It just doesn't > > set NFS_CAP_XATTR for the server, and the xattr handler entry points > > eturn -EOPNOTSUPP, as they check for NFS_CAP_XATTR. What's the preferred > > behavior there? > > getxattr(2) under ERRORS says: > > ENOTSUP > Extended attributes are not supported by the filesystem, > or are disabled. > > so I'm guessing just erroring out is clearest. > > I also see there's an EOPNOTSUPP return in the nouser_xattr case in > ext4_xattr_user_get. (errno(3) says ENOTSUP and EOPNOTSUPP are the same > value on Linux.) Sure. So, to recap, here's what I'll do: * Remove the CONFIG options - enable the code by default. * Server side: * Remove the export file option to not export extended attributes * Client side: * Always probe user xattr support, and use it when available (returning EOPNOTSUPP, as expected, for all xattr syscalls if it is not available). Thanks for the feedback so far - much appreciated. I'll submit the separate client and server patch sets this week. - Frank
> On Nov 4, 2019, at 5:58 PM, Bruce Fields <bfields@fieldses.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 04:21:47PM +0000, Frank van der Linden wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 10:36:03AM -0500, Chuck Lever wrote: >>> >>> Following the server's local file systems' mount options seems like a >>> good way to go. In particular, is there a need to expose user xattrs >>> on the server host, but prevent NFS clients' access to them? I can't >>> think of one. >> >> Ok, that sounds fine to me - I'll remove the user_xattr export flag, >> and we had already agreed to do away with the CONFIGs. >> >> That leaves one last item with regard to enabling support: the client side >> mount option. I assume the [no]user_xattr option should work the same as >> with other filesystems. What about the default setting? > > Just checking code for other filesystems quickly; if I understand right: > > - ext4 has user_xattr and nouser_xattr options, but you get a > deprecation warning if you try to use the latter; > - xfs doesn't support either option; > - cifs supports both, with xattr support the default. > > Not necessarily my call, but just for simplicity's sake, I'd probably > leave out the option and see if anybody complains. Agree, I would leave it out to begin with. Anyone on linux-fsdevel, feel free to chime in here about why some other file systems have this mount option. History lessons welcome. >> Also, currently, my code does not fail the mount operation if user xattrs >> are asked for, but the server does not support them. It just doesn't >> set NFS_CAP_XATTR for the server, and the xattr handler entry points >> eturn -EOPNOTSUPP, as they check for NFS_CAP_XATTR. What's the preferred >> behavior there? > > getxattr(2) under ERRORS says: > > ENOTSUP > Extended attributes are not supported by the filesystem, > or are disabled. > > so I'm guessing just erroring out is clearest. IMO on the client, we want getxattr failure behavior to be consistent among: - A version of NFS that does not support xattrs at all (say, v3) - A version of NFS that can support them but doesn't (say, NFSv4.2 before these patches) - A version of NFS that can support them, but the server doesn't - A version of NFS that can support them, a server that can support them, but it's filesystem doesn't > I also see there's an EOPNOTSUPP return in the nouser_xattr case in > ext4_xattr_user_get. (errno(3) says ENOTSUP and EOPNOTSUPP are the same > value on Linux.) > > --b. -- Chuck Lever chucklever@gmail.com
This RFC patch series implements both client and server side support for RFC8276 user extended attributes. The server side should be complete (except for modifications made after comments, of course). The client side lacks caching. I am working on that, but am not happy with my current implementation. So I'm sending this out for input. Having a reviewed base to work from will make adding client-side caching support easier to add, in any case. Thanks for any input! Some notable issues: * RFC8276 explicitly only concerns itself with the user xattr namespace. Linux is the only OS that encodes the namespace in the attribute name, adding "user." for the user namespace. Others, like FreeBSD and MacOS, pass the namespace as a system call argument. Since the "user." prefix is specific to Linux, it is stripped off on the client side, and added back on the server side. * Extended attributes tend to be small in size, but they may be somewhat large. The Linux-imposed limit is 64k. The sunrpc XDR interfaces only allow sizes > PAGE_SIZE to be encoded using pages. That works out great for reads/writes, but since there are no page-based xattr FS interfaces, it means some extra explicit copying. * A quirk of the Linux xattr implementation is that you can create more extended attributes per file than listxattr can handle in its maximum size, meaning that you get E2BIG back. There is no 1-1 translation for that error to the LISTXATTR op. I chose to return NFS4ERR_TOOSMALL (which is a valid error for the operation), and have the client code check for it and return E2BIG. Not great, but it seemed to be the best option. * The LISTXATTR op uses cookies to support multiple calls to retrieve the complete list, like READDDIR. This means that there's the old "how to deal with non-0 cookies" issue. In the vast majority of cases, LISTXATTR should not need multiple calls. However, you never know what a client will do. READDIR uses the cookie as a seek offset in to the directory. It's not quite as simple with LISTXATTR. First, there is no seperate FS interface to list only user xattrs. Which means that, based on permissions, the buffer returned by vfs_listxattr might turn out differently (e.g. if you have no permission to read some system. attributes). That means that using just a hard offset in to the buffer (with verifications) can't work, as its a context-specific value, and the client couldn't cache it if it wanted to. My code returns the attribute count as a cookie. The server always asks vfs_listxattr for a XATTR_LIST_MAX buffer (see below), and then starts XDR encoding at the Nth user xattr attribute, where N is the cookie value. There are bounds checks of course. This isn't great, but probably the best you can do. * There is no FS interface to only read user extended attributes, and the server code needs to strip off the "user." prefix. Additionally, the RFC specifies that the max length field for the LISTXATTR op refers to the total XDR-encoded length. Given all this, it is not possible to know what the length is it should pass to vfs_listxattr. So it just passes an XATTR_LIST_MAX sized buffer to vfs_listxattr, and then encodes as many user xattrs as it can from the returned buffer. * Given that this is an extension to v4.2, it is only supported if 4.2 is used (even though it has no dependencies on 4.2 specific features). * There is a new mount option, already known for other filesystems, "user_xattr", which must be passed explicitly as it stands right now, together with vers=4.2 * There is a new export option to turn off extended attributes for a filesystem. * Modifications outside of the NFS(D) code were minor. They were all in the xattr code, to export versions of vfs_setxattr and vfs_removexattr that the NFS code should use (inode rwsem taken because of atomic change info), and to have them break delegations, as specified by RFC8276. * As I mentioned, this has no client caching. I have one implementation, but I'm not that happy with it. The main issue with client caching is that, for virtually all expected cases, the number of user extended attributes per file will be small, and their data small. But, theoretically, you can, within current Linux limitations, create some 9000 user extended attributes per inode, each 64k in size. My current implementation uses an inode LRU chain (much like the access cache), and an rhashtable per inode (I picked rhashtables because they automatically grow). This seems like overkill, though. If there are any suggestions on better implementations, I'll be happy to take them. The client caching I mention here is not in this series, as I need to clean it up a bit (and am not sure if I really want to use it). But I can share it if asked. It will be in the next iteration, in whatever shape or form it might take. Frank van der Linden (35): nfsd: make sure the nfsd4_ops array has the right size nfs/nfsd: basic NFS4 extended attribute definitions NFSv4.2: query the server for extended attribute support nfs: parse the {no}user_xattr option NFSv4.2: define a function to compute the maximum XDR size for listxattr NFSv4.2: define and set initial limits for extended attributes NFSv4.2: define argument and response structures for xattr operations NFSv4.2: define the encode/decode sizes for the XATTR operations NFSv4.2: define and use extended attribute overhead sizes NFSv4.2: add client side XDR handling for extended attributes nfs: define nfs_access_get_cached function NFSv4.2: query the extended attribute access bits nfs: modify update_changeattr to deal with regular files nfs: define and use the NFS_INO_INVALID_XATTR flag nfs: make the buf_to_pages_noslab function available to the nfs code NFSv4.2: add the extended attribute proc functions. NFSv4.2: hook in the user extended attribute handlers NFSv4.2: add client side xattr caching functions NFSv4.2: call the xattr cache functions nfs: add the NFS_V4_XATTR config option xattr: modify vfs_{set,remove}xattr for NFS server use nfsd: split off the write decode code in to a seperate function nfsd: add defines for NFSv4.2 extended attribute support nfsd: define xattr functions to call in to their vfs counterparts nfsd: take xattr access bits in to account when checking nfsd: add structure definitions for xattr requests / responses nfsd: implement the xattr procedure functions. nfsd: define xattr reply size functions nfsd: add xattr XDR decode functions nfsd: add xattr XDR encode functions nfsd: add xattr operations to ops array xattr: add a function to check if a namespace is supported nfsd: add fattr support for user extended attributes nfsd: add export flag to disable user extended attributes nfsd: add NFSD_V4_XATTR config option fs/nfs/Kconfig | 9 + fs/nfs/Makefile | 1 + fs/nfs/client.c | 17 +- fs/nfs/dir.c | 24 +- fs/nfs/inode.c | 7 +- fs/nfs/internal.h | 24 ++ fs/nfs/nfs42.h | 29 ++ fs/nfs/nfs42proc.c | 242 ++++++++++++++ fs/nfs/nfs42xattr.c | 72 ++++ fs/nfs/nfs42xdr.c | 446 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ fs/nfs/nfs4_fs.h | 5 + fs/nfs/nfs4client.c | 31 ++ fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c | 246 ++++++++++++-- fs/nfs/nfs4super.c | 1 + fs/nfs/nfs4xdr.c | 35 ++ fs/nfs/nfstrace.h | 3 +- fs/nfs/super.c | 11 + fs/nfsd/Kconfig | 10 + fs/nfsd/export.c | 1 + fs/nfsd/nfs4proc.c | 145 +++++++- fs/nfsd/nfs4xdr.c | 548 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- fs/nfsd/nfsd.h | 13 +- fs/nfsd/vfs.c | 153 +++++++++ fs/nfsd/vfs.h | 10 + fs/nfsd/xdr4.h | 31 ++ fs/xattr.c | 90 ++++- include/linux/nfs4.h | 27 +- include/linux/nfs_fs.h | 6 + include/linux/nfs_fs_sb.h | 7 + include/linux/nfs_xdr.h | 62 +++- include/linux/xattr.h | 4 + include/uapi/linux/nfs4.h | 3 + include/uapi/linux/nfs_fs.h | 1 + include/uapi/linux/nfsd/export.h | 3 +- 34 files changed, 2233 insertions(+), 84 deletions(-) create mode 100644 fs/nfs/nfs42xattr.c