overlay: use private merged directory for AIS #2036

giuseppe · 2024-07-17T15:55:23Z

use a private "merged" directory when mounting from an additional store.

Operations like "Diff()" and "Changes()" cause an implicit mount when the naive differ is used.

The issue was not observed earlier because native overlay can achieve these operations without using a mount.

Since these mounts are performed read-only, and overlay supports multiple mounts using the same lowerdirs, use a private location for the "merged" directory. The location is owned by the current writeable store, that is locked for writing.

Closes: #2033

giuseppe · 2024-07-17T15:56:24Z

not ready for review, I am still validating it

mtrmac · 2024-07-17T16:24:14Z

store.go

 		store.stopReading()
+		if exists {
+			return nil, fmt.Errorf("mounting read/only store images is not allowed: %w", ErrLayerUnknown)


I didn’t read this carefully, just a skim: Doesn’t this mean that it will be completely impossible to push an image which contains base layers in an additional image store and some child layers in the primary store, because the base layers will not be exportable?

Or is the assumption that the graph driver will iterate through the additional stores without the top levels knowing? In that case 1) this might not be reachable, but also 2) that completely gives up on store locking; why is that OK?

(I know I don’t understand the AIS indirections, possible combinations, and locking, and quite possibly I would save everyone time by just staying out of this.)

the Diff/Changes operation can trigger a mount, we didn't notice the race before because native overlay doesn't need it (we just access the layer diff), but how can we ensure two processes do not step on each other when mount/unmount are involved?

Oh I don’t know how to solve this.

I continue to be confused about how AIS is supposed to work, I’m just noting that the PR, as is now, means that either things that used to work will stop working, or the PR is adding unnecessary code (and perhaps locking problems).

It seems to me that the basic situation is not even really additional-store related that much. See the LOCKING BUG comments in layers.go, isn’t that the same issue? (Again, saying that doesn’t mean I know how to fix it.)

should I relax the condition for allow mount from other stores but keep the writing lock for the rw store?

If the primary driver is consulting AIS layers anyway, I don’t think that checking the AIS layers here, again, makes things any better.

But really my first intuition is that the graph driver should not be accessing the AIS layers itself, in the first place — but then that’s clearly not reasonable for mounting a child layer depending on a parent in AIS.

I’m just too confused about the code to have an opinion.

cgwalters · 2024-07-17T17:08:50Z

drivers/overlay/overlay.go

@@ -1875,13 +1877,21 @@ func (d *Driver) get(id string, disableShifting bool, options graphdriver.MountO
 	return mergedDir, nil
 }

+func (d *Driver) getMergedDir(id, dir string, inAdditionalStore bool) string {


This one seems worthy of a doc comment, say

/// getMergedDir returns the directory path that should be used as the mount point for the overlayfs

cgwalters · 2024-07-17T17:10:04Z

drivers/overlay/overlay.go

@@ -1875,13 +1877,21 @@ func (d *Driver) get(id string, disableShifting bool, options graphdriver.MountO
 	return mergedDir, nil
 }

+func (d *Driver) getMergedDir(id, dir string, inAdditionalStore bool) string {
+	if inAdditionalStore {


Also

Suggested change

if inAdditionalStore {

// The merged directory may not exist in an additional store, so use a transient mount point in `/run` instead.

if inAdditionalStore {

or so?

… and if locking is a concern, and is happening in a non-obvious way, that also should be written down somewhere.

the reason for using the path under /run is that we hold only a read-only lock for the additional stores, so different processes can race when mounting/unmounting there and that is the root cause for #2033

cgwalters · 2024-07-17T17:12:25Z

drivers/overlay/overlay.go

+	if inAdditionalStore {
+		// check the base name for extra safety
+		if strings.HasPrefix(mountpoint, d.runhome) && filepath.Base(mountpoint) == "merged" {
+			err := os.RemoveAll(filepath.Dir(mountpoint))


There should never actually be any content underneath the merged directory, right? We should be able to safely just use os.Remove I think.

I can split this one in os.Remove(mountpoint); os.Remove(filepath.Dir(mountpoint)), I thought the RemoveAll version was more readable.

It's clearly more readable to use RemoveAll, but the two-step Remove is a much stronger "extra safety" than checking the pathname. I don't have a strong opinion though.

store.go

Signed-off-by: Giuseppe Scrivano <gscrivan@redhat.com>

mtrmac

A higher level comment, looking at the store changes:

This adds exclusive locking to Diff. IIRC previously we have tried fairly hard to make that only hold a shared lock. I don’t know anything specific about the performance impact, apart from vaguely remembering this is supposed to be a big deal. Do we know that this is actually fine?
A blocker for formal reasons: If I understand it correctly, the overlay graph driver how requires layerStore.Diff / layerStore.Changes to hold the layer store lock for writing for the primary store. If that’s correct, I think that must be documented in the layerStore methods (// Requires startReading or startWriting.) — and due to the unusual design, including the reason; typically we only require “writing” when modifying layerStore state, so if this is the overlay driver requiring exclusivity, that reason must be documented there as well.
- On second thought, wouldn’t it be viable for overlay to introduce its own special-purpose lock? Such a lock could only be used use it in the relevant cases, instead of this being visible at the top level.

mtrmac · 2024-07-17T18:09:56Z

store.go

@@ -2930,15 +2930,40 @@ func (s *store) Unmount(id string, force bool) (bool, error) {
 }

 func (s *store) Changes(from, to string) ([]archive.Change, error) {


I couldn’t find anything, apart from cmd here, that is using Changes. It’s tempting to think that it should be deprecated or somehow made private instead of expanding functionality. That’s probably not this PR.

drivers/overlay/overlay.go

mtrmac · 2024-07-17T18:48:17Z

IIRC previously we have tried fairly hard to make that only hold a shared lock.

The obvious impact is that serializing the Diff generation would also serialize pushes to basically happen one layer at a time. (I don’t know whether there are other impacts, maybe on builds.)

On second thought, wouldn’t it be viable for overlay to introduce its own special-purpose lock? Such a lock could only be used use it in the relevant cases, instead of this being visible at the top level.

Thinking about this a bit more, for concurrency, we would want the mounts to be reference-counted; and automatically cleaned up on crash; and at that point sharing cross-process is ~free. And we already have that kind of infrastructure in layerStore around mountsPath …

… except that it does not apply to the read-only AIS layers, at all. And, of course, the LOCKING BUG situation would apply.

mtrmac · 2024-07-17T19:10:23Z

And we already have that kind of infrastructure in layerStore around mountsPath …

… and it’s actually being used in this Diff path. (Except that I don’t know how that works for the AIS layers.) Anyway, I am clearly not paying enough attention, I’ll shut up.

when NaiveDiff is used, the Diff/Changes operations can trigger the mount of the layer. Prevent that multiple processes step on each other and one of them performs an unmount while the other one is still accessing the mount. Closes: containers#2033 Signed-off-by: Giuseppe Scrivano <gscrivan@redhat.com>

Signed-off-by: Giuseppe Scrivano <gscrivan@redhat.com>

giuseppe · 2024-07-17T20:38:13Z

A higher level comment, looking at the store changes:

This adds exclusive locking to Diff. IIRC previously we have tried fairly hard to make that only hold a shared lock. I don’t know anything specific about the performance impact, apart from vaguely remembering this is supposed to be a big deal. Do we know that this is actually fine?

but a Diff can trigger a mount, as it is in the race condition I am trying to fix; so the locking here shouldn't be too different from what we do in store.mount. A shared lock works only under the assumption that there are no mounts involved, so it is practically broken for anything else than plain native overlay and vfs (and even vfs calls into NaiveDiff, but the mount for vfs is a nop).
. This could be improved later, exposing whether the driver needs a new mount or can do the diff without changing the state of the store.

A blocker for formal reasons: If I understand it correctly, the overlay graph driver how requires layerStore.Diff / layerStore.Changes to hold the layer store lock for writing for the primary store. If that’s correct, I think that must be documented in the layerStore methods (// Requires startReading or startWriting.) — and due to the unusual design, including the reason; typically we only require “writing” when modifying layerStore state, so if this is the overlay driver requiring exclusivity, that reason must be documented there as well.

it is every driver except plain native overlay to require that, and vfs since there is no "mount" operation for vfs.

On second thought, wouldn’t it be viable for overlay to introduce its own special-purpose lock? Such a lock could only be used use it in the relevant cases, instead of this being visible at the top level.

Every driver, except vfs and native overlay, require a "mount" operation to access the files in the layer, so IMO it is better to make it the default behavior

Signed-off-by: Giuseppe Scrivano <gscrivan@redhat.com>

use a private "merged" directory when mounting from an additional store. Operations like "Diff()" and "Changes()" cause an implicit mount when the naive differ is used. The issue was not observed earlier because native overlay can achieve these operations without using a mount. Since these mounts are performed read-only, and overlay supports multiple mounts using the same lowerdirs, use a private location for the "merged" directory. The location is owned by the current writeable store, that is locked for writing. Closes: containers#2033 Signed-off-by: Giuseppe Scrivano <gscrivan@redhat.com>

giuseppe · 2024-07-17T22:11:48Z

tests pass both for Podmand and Buildah:

giuseppe · 2024-07-18T15:55:08Z

@cgwalters @rhatdan @mtrmac if there are no blockers, let's get this one and #2031 merged so we can enable the Podman CI, we can fix/improve things later but at least we have a more solid base knowing the e2e tests pass

cgwalters · 2024-07-18T18:22:48Z

I'm not going to pretend I understand all this code well, but narrowing in on this comment:

Since these mounts are performed read-only, and overlay supports multiple mounts using the same lowerdirs, use a private location for the "merged" directory. The location is owned by the current writeable store, that is locked for writing.

The model we have with AIS is basically that there's only one writable store, correct? In that case, I think I understand how this fixes the issue.

Thinking about this a bit more, for concurrency, we would want the mounts to be reference-counted; and automatically cleaned up on crash; and at that point sharing cross-process is ~free. And we already have that kind of infrastructure in layerStore around mountsPath …

And you're saying we're not using that code though here? I'm not sure if we are or not, but it looks to me like this patch is mostly just modifying the location of the mounts.

cgwalters · 2024-07-18T18:23:36Z

I guess bottom line I can just say
/approve
from my PoV, not totally comfortable with a lgtm myself

openshift-ci · 2024-07-18T18:23:42Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: cgwalters, giuseppe

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

~~OWNERS~~ [giuseppe]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

mtrmac · 2024-07-18T18:25:57Z

A higher level comment, looking at the store changes:

This adds exclusive locking to Diff. IIRC previously we have tried fairly hard to make that only hold a shared lock. I don’t know anything specific about the performance impact, apart from vaguely remembering this is supposed to be a big deal. Do we know that this is actually fine?

but a Diff can trigger a mount, as it is in the race condition I am trying to fix; so the locking here shouldn't be too different from what we do in store.mount.

Right, and we can’t do an exclusive lock to mount, then downgrade to a shared lock for creating the diff (that part could work), and then upgrade again to unmount (we don’t have code that could do this, at least ATM, and I’m not immediately sure that can be done without risking deadlocks). I understand, at least in general terms, the difficulty.

This could be improved later, exposing whether the driver needs a new mount or can do the diff without changing the state of the store.

Right now, making Diffs for all users of overlay slower, in order to fix composefs (which doesn’t have in-production users) seems to me to be the wrong tradeoff.

If composefs Diffs have to be serialized (or if they have to be serialized for a few months until we figure something out), fine, that’s a valid trade-off that users can make when deciding whether to deploy composefs. It seems to me that this just doesn’t justify slowing down overlay for all existing systems, including existing enterprise deployments.

So I think we need to figure out a way to keep this read-locked for overlay, and until we do, composefs just isn’t ready. But I’m fully open to being overridden on this.

A blocker for formal reasons: If I understand it correctly, the overlay graph driver how requires layerStore.Diff / layerStore.Changes to hold the layer store lock for writing for the primary store. If that’s correct, I think that must be documented in the layerStore methods (// Requires startReading or startWriting.) — and due to the unusual design, including the reason; typically we only require “writing” when modifying layerStore state, so if this is the overlay driver requiring exclusivity, that reason must be documented there as well.

it is every driver except plain native overlay to require that, and vfs since there is no "mount" operation for vfs.

The reason I am considering this paragraph “blocker” is that I want layerStore comments about the locking to precisely match what the rules are. This PR has changed the rules but not updated the comments. (Sure, that might be premature if we decide to instead change the approach entirely.)

(This is the only “blocker” from my side, to the extent that I’m ignorant about drivers/overlay and AIS, and staying out of that problem space. But I do insist on the locking documentation being maintained.)

mtrmac · 2024-07-18T18:29:29Z

we would want the mounts to be reference-counted …. And we already have that kind of infrastructure in layerStore around mountsPath …

And you're saying we're not using that code though here?

I was mistaken here. We are using the mounts reference counting … but that reference counting at the primary store also, AFAICS, assumes that layer records exist on the primary store; looking at that yesterday, I didn’t see how it can work for counting additional-store layers that are not known to the primary store. But, also, I’m unfamiliar with the details, and strongly time-constrained right now; this might well be fine.

cgwalters · 2024-07-18T18:34:44Z

One thing I would say here is I see an intersection with #2018 ...if what we mounted was always a single flattened composefs image, the only cross-store dependency would be refcounting of the underlying files behind the composefs (cc containers/composefs#125 ), but with a read-only additional store we would be guaranteed that the underlying objects wouldn't go away.

giuseppe · 2024-07-18T20:07:25Z

If composefs Diffs have to be serialized (or if they have to be serialized for a few months until we figure something out), fine, that’s a valid trade-off that users can make when deciding whether to deploy composefs. It seems to me that this just doesn’t justify slowing down overlay for all existing systems, including existing enterprise deployments.

this is probably already broken with fuse-overlayfs, just nobody hit the race, because with fuse-overlayfs we are using the naive diff (thus causing the mount)

mtrmac · 2024-07-18T20:20:53Z

If composefs Diffs have to be serialized (or if they have to be serialized for a few months until we figure something out), fine, that’s a valid trade-off that users can make when deciding whether to deploy composefs. It seems to me that this just doesn’t justify slowing down overlay for all existing systems, including existing enterprise deployments.

this is probably already broken with fuse-overlayfs, just nobody hit the race, because with fuse-overlayfs we are using the naive diff (thus causing the mount)

If this is pointing at the start of overlay.Driver.Diff’s call of useNaiveDiff, that is a convincing argument.

… but I’m a bit lost at how that happens. AFAICS all calls (in Podman) are Diff("", id), i.e. against the immediate parent, and overlay (unconditionally) implements DiffGetter; i.e. overlay.Driver.Diff is not typically used at all, and that useNaiveDiff doesn’t make a difference. The only common way overlay.Driver.Diff could be invoked is if the layer doesn’t have tar-split data (i.e. it is a running container??). Is that what we are talking about here? Or is there something completely different going on?

mtrmac · 2024-07-18T21:47:45Z

we would want the mounts to be reference-counted …. And we already have that kind of infrastructure in layerStore around mountsPath …

And you're saying we're not using that code though here?

I was mistaken here.

… and mistaken again? The layerStore.Diff→newFileGetter path triggers reference-counted mounts. But we seem to be talking about layerStore.Diff→overlay.Driver.Diff→drivers.NaiveDiffDriver.Diff, and that one does not involve the reference counting.

I’m sorry. I’ve not been helping.

rhatdan · 2024-07-22T11:14:42Z

/lgtm

... as modified by #2036 . Also document a LOCKING BUG I don't now care to fix. Signed-off-by: Miloslav Trmač <mitr@redhat.com>

mtrmac · 2024-08-30T14:42:06Z

The reason I am considering this paragraph “blocker” is that I want layerStore comments about the locking to precisely match what the rules are.… But I do insist on the locking documentation being maintained.)

#2080 .

openshift-ci bot added do-not-merge/work-in-progress approved labels Jul 17, 2024

giuseppe force-pushed the fix-race-condition-naive-diff branch from 6fa7b85 to b4ad83d Compare July 17, 2024 15:56

giuseppe mentioned this pull request Jul 17, 2024

composefs?? random ENOENTS in CI #2033

Closed

giuseppe force-pushed the fix-race-condition-naive-diff branch from b4ad83d to 5c98373 Compare July 17, 2024 15:59

mtrmac reviewed Jul 17, 2024

View reviewed changes

cgwalters reviewed Jul 17, 2024

View reviewed changes

store: change error to ErrStoreIsReadOnly

0af94a8

Signed-off-by: Giuseppe Scrivano <gscrivan@redhat.com>

giuseppe force-pushed the fix-race-condition-naive-diff branch from 5c98373 to 120642a Compare July 17, 2024 17:42

giuseppe added a commit to giuseppe/libpod that referenced this pull request Jul 17, 2024

vendor: test containers/storage#2036

b8ee5ae

Signed-off-by: Giuseppe Scrivano <gscrivan@redhat.com>

giuseppe added a commit to giuseppe/libpod that referenced this pull request Jul 17, 2024

vendor: test containers/storage#2036

bfaa945

Signed-off-by: Giuseppe Scrivano <gscrivan@redhat.com>

giuseppe force-pushed the fix-race-condition-naive-diff branch from 120642a to 05659bf Compare July 17, 2024 18:24

giuseppe added a commit to giuseppe/libpod that referenced this pull request Jul 17, 2024

vendor: test containers/storage#2036

674ae31

Signed-off-by: Giuseppe Scrivano <gscrivan@redhat.com>

mtrmac requested changes Jul 17, 2024

View reviewed changes

giuseppe force-pushed the fix-race-condition-naive-diff branch from 05659bf to 1e60d87 Compare July 17, 2024 20:12

giuseppe added a commit to giuseppe/libpod that referenced this pull request Jul 17, 2024

vendor: test containers/storage#2036

a18e724

Signed-off-by: Giuseppe Scrivano <gscrivan@redhat.com>

giuseppe added a commit to giuseppe/buildah that referenced this pull request Jul 17, 2024

vendor: test containers/storage#2036

f0e7bf4

Signed-off-by: Giuseppe Scrivano <gscrivan@redhat.com>

giuseppe added a commit to giuseppe/libpod that referenced this pull request Jul 17, 2024

vendor: test containers/storage#2036

7bbc629

Signed-off-by: Giuseppe Scrivano <gscrivan@redhat.com>

giuseppe force-pushed the fix-race-condition-naive-diff branch from 1e60d87 to 683e806 Compare July 17, 2024 21:29

giuseppe marked this pull request as ready for review July 18, 2024 13:05

openshift-ci bot removed the do-not-merge/work-in-progress label Jul 18, 2024

giuseppe mentioned this pull request Jul 18, 2024

test: disable artifacts cache with composefs containers/podman#23274

Merged

cgwalters changed the title ~~overlay: use private merged directory~~ overlay: use private merged directory for AIS Jul 18, 2024

openshift-ci bot assigned rhatdan Jul 22, 2024

openshift-ci bot added the lgtm label Jul 22, 2024

openshift-merge-bot bot merged commit 1bf05dd into containers:main Jul 22, 2024
18 checks passed

mtrmac added a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 30, 2024

Be clearer about the layer store locking rules

74c273e

... as modified by #2036 . Also document a LOCKING BUG I don't now care to fix. Signed-off-by: Miloslav Trmač <mitr@redhat.com>

mtrmac mentioned this pull request Aug 30, 2024

Be clearer about the layer store locking rules #2080

Merged

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

overlay: use private merged directory for AIS #2036

overlay: use private merged directory for AIS #2036

giuseppe commented Jul 17, 2024

giuseppe commented Jul 17, 2024

mtrmac Jul 17, 2024

giuseppe Jul 17, 2024

mtrmac Jul 17, 2024 •

edited

Loading

giuseppe Jul 17, 2024

mtrmac Jul 17, 2024

cgwalters Jul 17, 2024

cgwalters Jul 17, 2024

mtrmac Jul 17, 2024

giuseppe Jul 17, 2024

cgwalters Jul 17, 2024

giuseppe Jul 17, 2024

cgwalters Jul 18, 2024

mtrmac left a comment •

edited

Loading

mtrmac Jul 17, 2024

mtrmac commented Jul 17, 2024

mtrmac commented Jul 17, 2024

giuseppe commented Jul 17, 2024 •

edited

Loading

giuseppe commented Jul 17, 2024

giuseppe commented Jul 18, 2024

cgwalters commented Jul 18, 2024

cgwalters commented Jul 18, 2024

openshift-ci bot commented Jul 18, 2024

mtrmac commented Jul 18, 2024 •

edited

Loading

mtrmac commented Jul 18, 2024

cgwalters commented Jul 18, 2024

giuseppe commented Jul 18, 2024

mtrmac commented Jul 18, 2024

mtrmac commented Jul 18, 2024 •

edited

Loading

rhatdan commented Jul 22, 2024

mtrmac commented Aug 30, 2024

	if inAdditionalStore {
	// The merged directory may not exist in an additional store, so use a transient mount point in `/run` instead.
	if inAdditionalStore {

		@@ -2930,15 +2930,40 @@ func (s *store) Unmount(id string, force bool) (bool, error) {
		}

		func (s *store) Changes(from, to string) ([]archive.Change, error) {

overlay: use private merged directory for AIS #2036

overlay: use private merged directory for AIS #2036

Conversation

giuseppe commented Jul 17, 2024

giuseppe commented Jul 17, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mtrmac Jul 17, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mtrmac left a comment • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mtrmac commented Jul 17, 2024

mtrmac commented Jul 17, 2024

giuseppe commented Jul 17, 2024 • edited Loading

giuseppe commented Jul 17, 2024

giuseppe commented Jul 18, 2024

cgwalters commented Jul 18, 2024

cgwalters commented Jul 18, 2024

openshift-ci bot commented Jul 18, 2024

mtrmac commented Jul 18, 2024 • edited Loading

mtrmac commented Jul 18, 2024

cgwalters commented Jul 18, 2024

giuseppe commented Jul 18, 2024

mtrmac commented Jul 18, 2024

mtrmac commented Jul 18, 2024 • edited Loading

rhatdan commented Jul 22, 2024

mtrmac commented Aug 30, 2024

mtrmac Jul 17, 2024 •

edited

Loading

mtrmac left a comment •

edited

Loading

giuseppe commented Jul 17, 2024 •

edited

Loading

mtrmac commented Jul 18, 2024 •

edited

Loading

mtrmac commented Jul 18, 2024 •

edited

Loading