1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
|
# Copyright (C) 2005-2016 Junjiro R. Okajima
Lookup in a Branch
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Since aufs has a character of sub-VFS (see Introduction), it operates
lookup for branches as VFS does. It may be a heavy work. But almost all
lookup operation in aufs is the simplest case, ie. lookup only an entry
directly connected to its parent. Digging down the directory hierarchy
is unnecessary. VFS has a function lookup_one_len() for that use, and
aufs calls it.
When a branch is a remote filesystem, aufs basically relies upon its
->d_revalidate(), also aufs forces the hardest revalidate tests for
them.
For d_revalidate, aufs implements three levels of revalidate tests. See
"Revalidate Dentry and UDBA" in detail.
Test Only the Highest One for the Directory Permission (dirperm1 option)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's try case study.
- aufs has two branches, upper readwrite and lower readonly.
/au = /rw + /ro
- "dirA" exists under /ro, but /rw. and its mode is 0700.
- user invoked "chmod a+rx /au/dirA"
- the internal copy-up is activated and "/rw/dirA" is created and its
permission bits are set to world readable.
- then "/au/dirA" becomes world readable?
In this case, /ro/dirA is still 0700 since it exists in readonly branch,
or it may be a natively readonly filesystem. If aufs respects the lower
branch, it should not respond readdir request from other users. But user
allowed it by chmod. Should really aufs rejects showing the entries
under /ro/dirA?
To be honest, I don't have a good solution for this case. So aufs
implements 'dirperm1' and 'nodirperm1' mount options, and leave it to
users.
When dirperm1 is specified, aufs checks only the highest one for the
directory permission, and shows the entries. Otherwise, as usual, checks
every dir existing on all branches and rejects the request.
As a side effect, dirperm1 option improves the performance of aufs
because the number of permission check is reduced when the number of
branch is many.
Revalidate Dentry and UDBA (User's Direct Branch Access)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Generally VFS helpers re-validate a dentry as a part of lookup.
0. digging down the directory hierarchy.
1. lock the parent dir by its i_mutex.
2. lookup the final (child) entry.
3. revalidate it.
4. call the actual operation (create, unlink, etc.)
5. unlock the parent dir
If the filesystem implements its ->d_revalidate() (step 3), then it is
called. Actually aufs implements it and checks the dentry on a branch is
still valid.
But it is not enough. Because aufs has to release the lock for the
parent dir on a branch at the end of ->lookup() (step 2) and
->d_revalidate() (step 3) while the i_mutex of the aufs dir is still
held by VFS.
If the file on a branch is changed directly, eg. bypassing aufs, after
aufs released the lock, then the subsequent operation may cause
something unpleasant result.
This situation is a result of VFS architecture, ->lookup() and
->d_revalidate() is separated. But I never say it is wrong. It is a good
design from VFS's point of view. It is just not suitable for sub-VFS
character in aufs.
Aufs supports such case by three level of revalidation which is
selectable by user.
1. Simple Revalidate
Addition to the native flow in VFS's, confirm the child-parent
relationship on the branch just after locking the parent dir on the
branch in the "actual operation" (step 4). When this validation
fails, aufs returns EBUSY. ->d_revalidate() (step 3) in aufs still
checks the validation of the dentry on branches.
2. Monitor Changes Internally by Inotify/Fsnotify
Addition to above, in the "actual operation" (step 4) aufs re-lookup
the dentry on the branch, and returns EBUSY if it finds different
dentry.
Additionally, aufs sets the inotify/fsnotify watch for every dir on branches
during it is in cache. When the event is notified, aufs registers a
function to kernel 'events' thread by schedule_work(). And the
function sets some special status to the cached aufs dentry and inode
private data. If they are not cached, then aufs has nothing to
do. When the same file is accessed through aufs (step 0-3) later,
aufs will detect the status and refresh all necessary data.
In this mode, aufs has to ignore the event which is fired by aufs
itself.
3. No Extra Validation
This is the simplest test and doesn't add any additional revalidation
test, and skip the revalidation in step 4. It is useful and improves
aufs performance when system surely hide the aufs branches from user,
by over-mounting something (or another method).
|
