Re: [PATCH 00/29] fs: require filesystems to explicitly opt-in to nfsd export support
Dave Chinner <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | dev.linux.lists.gfs2,dev.linux.lists.ntfs3,dev.linux.lists.ocfs2-devel,net.sourceforge.lists.linux-f2fs-devel,org.infradead.lists.linux-mtd,org.kernel.vger.ceph-devel,org.kernel.vger.linux-btrfs,org.kernel.vger.linux-cifs,org.kernel.vger.linux-ext4,org.kernel.vger.linux-fsdevel,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-nfs,org.kernel.vger.linux-nilfs,org.kernel.vger.linux-unionfs,org.kernel.vger.linux-xfs,org.kvack.linux-mm,org.ozlabs.lists.linux-erofs |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Thu, Jan 15, 2026 at 02:37:09PM -0500, Chuck Lever wrote: > On 1/15/26 2:14 PM, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 15, 2026 at 7:32 PM Chuck Lever <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Jan 15, 2026, at 1:17 PM, Amir Goldstein wrote: > >>> On Thu, Jan 15, 2026 at 6:48 PM Jeff Layton <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> In recent years, a number of filesystems that can't present stable > >>>> filehandles have grown struct export_operations. They've mostly done > >>>> this for local use-cases (enabling open_by_handle_at() and the like). > >>>> Unfortunately, having export_operations is generally sufficient to make > >>>> a filesystem be considered exportable via nfsd, but that requires that > >>>> the server present stable filehandles. > >>> > >>> Where does the term "stable file handles" come from? and what does it mean? > >>> Why not "persistent handles", which is described in NFS and SMB specs? > >>> > >>> Not to mention that EXPORT_OP_PERSISTENT_HANDLES was Acked > >>> by both Christoph and Christian: > >>> > >>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20260115-rundgang-leihgabe-12018e93c00c@brauner/ > >>> > >>> Am I missing anything? > >> > >> PERSISTENT generally implies that the file handle is saved on > >> persistent storage. This is not true of tmpfs. > > > > That's one way of interpreting "persistent". > > Another way is "continuing to exist or occur over a prolonged period." > > which works well for tmpfs that is mounted for a long time. > > I think we can be a lot more precise about the guarantee: The file > handle does not change for the life of the inode it represents. It <pedantic mode engaged> File handles most definitely change over the life of a /physical/ inode. Unlinking a file does not require ending the life of the physical object that provides the persistent data store for the file. e.g. XFS dynamically allocates physical inodes might in a life cycle that looks somewhat life this: allocate physical inode insert record into allocated inode index mark inode as free while (don't need to free physical inode) { ... allocate inode for a new file update persistent inode metadata to generate new filehandle mark inode in use ... unlink file mark inode free } remove inode from allocated inode index free physical inode i.e. a free inode is still an -allocated, indexed inode- in the filesystem, and until we physically remove it from the filesystem the inode life cycle has not ended. IOWs, the physical (persistent) inode lifetime can span the lifetime of -many- files. However, the filesystem guarantees that the handle generated for that inode is different for each file it represents over the whole inode life time. Hence I think that file handle stability/persistence needs to be defined in terms of -file lifetimes-, not the lifetimes of the filesystem objects implement the file's persistent data store. -Dave. -- Dave Chinner [email protected]