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]
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.