Re: Grace period

[Stanislav Kinsbursky]

09.04.2012 20:33, Myklebust, Trond ÐÐÑÐÑ:
> 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.

BTW, we DO use one mount namespace for all containers and host in OpenVZ. This 
allows us to have an access to containers mount points from initial environment. 
Isolation between containers is done via chroot and some simple tricks on 
/proc/mounts read operation.
Moreover, with one mount namespace, we currently support bind-mounting on NFS 
from one container into another...

Anyway, I'm sorry, but I'm not familiar with this pseudoroot idea.
Why does it prevents implementing of check for "superblock-network namespace" 
pair on NFS server start and forbid (?) it in case of this pair is shared 
already in other namespace? I.e. maybe this pseudoroot can be an exclusion from 
this rule?
Or I'm just missing the point at all?

--
Best regards,
Stanislav Kinsbursky
--
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/