Re: Grace period

[bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx]

On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 04:33:36PM +0000, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-04-09 at 12:21 -0400, bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 04:17:06PM +0000, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2012-04-09 at 12:11 -0400, bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 08:08:57PM +0400, Stanislav Kinsbursky wrote:
> > > > > 09.04.2012 19:27, Jeff Layton ÐÐÑÐÑ:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >If you allow one container to hand out conflicting locks while another
> > > > > >container is allowing reclaims, then you can end up with some very
> > > > > >difficult to debug silent data corruption. That's the worst possible
> > > > > >outcome, IMO. We really need to actively keep people from shooting
> > > > > >themselves in the foot here.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >One possibility might be to only allow filesystems to be exported from
> > > > > >a single container at a time (and allow that to be overridable somehow
> > > > > >once we have a working active/active serving solution). With that, you
> > > > > >may be able limp along with a per-container grace period handling
> > > > > >scheme like you're proposing.
> > > > > >
> > > > > 
> > > > > Ok then. Keeping people from shooting themselves here sounds reasonable.
> > > > > And I like the idea of exporting a filesystem only from once per
> > > > > network namespace.
> > > > 
> > > > Unfortunately that's not going to get us very far, especially not in the
> > > > v4 case where we've got the common read-only pseudoroot that everyone
> > > > has to share.
> > > 
> > > I don't see how that can work in cases where each container has its own
> > > private mount namespace. You're going to have to tie that pseudoroot to
> > > the mount namespace somehow.
> > 
> > Sure, but in typical cases it'll still be shared; requiring that they
> > not be sounds like a severe limitation.
> 
> I'd expect the typical case to be the non-shared namespace: the whole
> point of containers is to provide for complete isolation of processes.
> Usually that implies that you don't want them to be able to communicate
> via a shared filesystem.

If it's just a file server, then you may want to be able to bring up and
down service on individual server ip's individually, and possibly
advertise different exports; but requiring complete isolation to do that
seems like overkill.

--b.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/