From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 25 18:29:26 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C9571065680; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 18:29:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from h.schmalzbauer@omnilan.de) Received: from host.omnilan.net (s1.omnilan.net [62.245.232.135]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8E678FC1B; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 18:29:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from titan.inop.wdn.omnilan.net (titan.inop.wdn.omnilan.net [172.21.3.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by host.omnilan.net (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q8PIPhU7004070 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 25 Sep 2012 20:25:43 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from h.schmalzbauer@omnilan.de) Message-ID: <5061F6E9.6030104@omnilan.de> Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 20:24:41 +0200 From: Harald Schmalzbauer Organization: OmniLAN User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; de-DE; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100906 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: attilio@freebsd.org References: <20120829060158.GA38721@x2.osted.lan> <20120831052003.GA91340@x2.osted.lan> <20120905201531.GA54452@x2.osted.lan> <20120917140055.GA9037@x2.osted.lan> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig5956BD299507D7C8FB9E48CE" Cc: Peter Holm , bdrewery@freebsd.org, FreeBSD FS , George Neville-Neil , freebsd-current@freebsd.org, =?UTF-8?B?R3VzdGF1IFDDqXJleg==?= Subject: Re: MPSAFE VFS -- List of upcoming actions X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 18:29:26 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig5956BD299507D7C8FB9E48CE Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable schrieb Attilio Rao am 21.09.2012 02:22 (localtime): > On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 3:48 AM, Attilio Rao wrot= e: >> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 12:18 AM, Attilio Rao wr= ote: >>> 2012/7/4 Attilio Rao : >>>> 2012/6/29 Attilio Rao : >>>>> As already published several times, according to the following plan= : >>>>> http://wiki.freebsd.org/NONMPSAFE_DEORBIT_VFS >>>>> >>>> I still haven't heard from Vivien or Edward, anyway as NTFS is >>>> basically only used RO these days (also the mount_ntfs code just >>>> permits RO mounting) I stripped all the uncomplete/bogus write suppo= rt >>>> with the following patch: >>>> http://www.freebsd.org/~attilio/ntfs_remove_write.patch >>>> >>>> This is an attempt to make the code smaller and possibly just focus = on >>>> the locking that really matter (as read-only filesystem). >>>> On some points of the patch I'm a bit less sure as we could easily >>>> take into account also write for things like vaccess() arguments, an= d >>>> make easier to re-add correct write support at some point in the >>>> future, but still force RO, even if the approach used in the patch i= s >>>> more correct IMHO. >>>> As an added bonus this patch cleans some dirty code in the mount >>>> operation and fixes a bug as vfs_mountedfrom() is called before real= >>>> mounting is completed and can still fail. >>> A quick update on this. >>> It looks like NTFS won't be completed for this GSoC thus I seriously >>> need to find an alternative to not loose the NTFS support entirely. >>> >>> I tried to look into the NTFS implementation right now and it is >>> really a poor support. As Peter has also verified, it can deadlock in= >>> no-time, it compeltely violates VFS rules, etc. IMHO it deserves a >>> complete rewrite if we would still support in-kernel NTFS. I also >>> tried to look at the NetBSD implementation. Their code is someway >>> similar to our, but they used very complicated (and very dirty) code >>> to do the locking. Even if I don't know well enough NetBSD VFS, I hav= e >>> the impression not all the races are correctly handled. Definitively,= >>> not something I would like to port. >>> >>> Considering all that the only viable option would be meaning an >>> userland filesystem implementation. My preferred choice would be to >>> import PUFFS and librefuse on top of it but honestly it requires a lo= t >>> of time to be completed, time which I don't currently have as in 2 >>> months Giant must be gone by the VFS. >>> >>> I then decided to switch to gnn's rewamp of FUSE patches. You can fin= d >>> his initial e-mail here: >>> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs/2012-March/013876.html >>> >>> I've precisely got the second version of George's patch and created >>> this dolphin branch: >>> svn://svn.freebsd.org/base/projects/fuse >>> >>> I'm fixing low hanging fruit for the moment (see r238411 for example)= >>> and I still have to make a throughful review. >>> However my idea is to commit the support once: >>> - ntfs-3g is well stress-tested and proves to be bug-free >>> - there is no major/big technical issue pending after the reviews >> In the last weeks Peter, Florian, Gustau and I have been working in >> stabilizing fuse support. In the specific, Peter has worked hard on >> producing several utilities to nit stress-test fuse and in particular >> ntfs, Florian has improved fuse related ports (as explained later) and= >> Gustau has done sparse testing. I feel moderately satisfied by the >> level of stability of fuse now to propose to wider usage, in >> particular given the huge amount of complaints I'm hearing around >> about occasional fuse users. >> >> The final target of the project is to completely import into base the >> content of fusefs-kmod starting from earlier posted patches by George.= >> So far, we took care only of importing in the fuse branch the kernel >> part, so that fusefs-kmod userland part is still needed to be >> installed from ports, but I was studying the mount_fusefs licensing >> before to process with the import for the userland bits of it. >> >> The fixing has been happening here: >> svn://svn.freebsd.org/base/projects/fuse/ >> >> which is essentially an HEAD branch + fuse kernel components. In order= >> to get fuse, please compile a kernel from this branch with FUSE option= >> or simply build and load fuse module. >> Alternatively, a kernel patch that should work with HEAD@240684 is her= e: >> http://www.freebsd.org/~attilio/fuse_import/fuse_240684.patch >> >> I guess the patch can easilly apply to all FreeBSD branches, really, >> but it is not tested to anything else different then -CURRENT. >> >> As said you still need currently to build fusefs-kmod port. However >> you need these further patches, to be put in the fusefs-kmod/files/ >> directory:: >> http://www.freebsd.org/~attilio/fuse_import/patch-Makefile >> http://www.freebsd.org/~attilio/fuse_import/patch-mount_fusefs__mount_= fusefs2.c >> >> They both disable the old kernel building/linking and import new >> functionality to let the new kernel support work well in presence of >> many consumers. >> >> In addition to fusefs-kmod, Bryan and Florian have also updated >> fusefs-lib and fusefs-ntfs ports. For instance, please refer to this >> e-mail: >> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2012-August/077950.ht= ml >> >> Even if this work is someway independent by the fusefs-kmod import, I >> warmly suggest to all of you to use their patches (and this what we >> have been testing so far too. > So, after Bryan and Florian ports update, I've also committed userland > part of fusefs-kmod and now the project branch fully mirrors > functionality of fusefs-kmod. The code in projects/fuse, infact, will > also install mount_fusefs as part of the fuse support. > > You can use the branch directly or this patch against -CURRENT at 24075= 2: > http://www.freebsd.org/~attilio/fuse_import/fuse_240752.patch Hello, first, many thanks for your effort bringing fusefs support into base with decent stability!!! I tried to compile RELENG_9_1 with your patch, but failed figuring out why compiling world stops with this error: src/sbin/mount_fusefs/mount_fusefs.c:319: error: void value not ignored as it ought to be *** [mount_fusefs.o] Error code 1 Thanks for any hint. -Harry --------------enig5956BD299507D7C8FB9E48CE Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAlBh9u4ACgkQLDqVQ9VXb8gpAwCfb5VoWs1KCpoaAowEGEmXaYyo FGAAnRAqlgLO5GN46sxm63FoIcinBDX2 =ZOwb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig5956BD299507D7C8FB9E48CE--