Dear 9fans, I'm confused regarding the correct behavior for a Tread handler for directories, and the corresponding correct behavior for a client that wants to read the whole contents of a directory. I was trying to use 9fans/go/plan9/client.Fid.Dirreadall [https://github.com/9fans/go/blob/master/plan9/client/fid.go#L54-L60] and found that it returned fewer entries than a single Dirread. The reason is that Dirreadall uses ioutil.ReadAll which doesn't work well with a fid corresponding to a directory, because it spuriously detects io.EOF when in fact there are more dir entries, but none fits into the read buffer. Example trace: Tread tag 65535 fid 2 offset 0 count 512 Rread tag 65535 count 499 Tread tag 65535 fid 2 offset 499 count 13 Rread tag 65535 count 0 There would be more dir entries, but the one at offset 499 is longer than 13 bytes, so none is returned. It follows that Dirreadall is buggy, but let's set aside the discussion of a fix for a moment. Now consider this instead: I also thought that my server was at fault: perhaps it should respond with Rerror of some kind instead of a 0-byte Rread. The rationale was that it's risky for directory contents to disappear if the client doesn't have large enough buffers. When I tried that change in my fs, I found that I could no longer list directories when mounted under Linux. Restoring the original code that responds with 0-byte Rread, I traced the Linux driver's behaviour when listing a directory: Tread tag 0 fid 2 offset 0 count 8168 Rread tag 0 count 8109 Tread tag 0 fid 2 offset 8109 count 59 Rread tag 0 count 0 Tread tag 0 fid 2 offset 8109 count 8168 Rread tag 0 count 5410 Tread tag 0 fid 2 offset 13519 count 2758 Rread tag 0 count 0 Tread tag 0 fid 2 offset 13519 count 8168 Rread tag 0 count 0 Tread tag 0 fid 2 offset 13519 count 8168 Rread tag 0 count 0 When it gets a 0-byte Rread, it tries a new Tread with the largest possible buffer size (msize=8192 in this connection). You see this behavior twice above. Only after getting 0-byte Rread twice in a row, it gives up. QUESTION. The last Tread/Rread seems superflous to me. After enlarging the buffer size from 2758 to 8168 and still getting 0, I'd think the client could detect EOF. I don't see the point of an additional Tread of 8168 bytes. QUESTION. But other than that, is that what a client should do for reading directories? Enlarge the read buffer and see if it still gets 0 bytes? I'm asking because my initial fix to Dirreadall was to always issue Treads with count=msize-24, and because I find the above approach to incur 2x the round trips necessary. QUESTION. Similarly, is the server supposed to silently return a 0-byte Rread when no dir entries fit in the response buffer, despite there being more dir entries available? Finally, I noticed the plan9.STATMAX (65535) as the buffer size used in Dirread (a few lines above Dirreadall). That points to the fact that in theory that's the max size of a serialized dir entry, which leads me to ask one last QUESTION. What happens and what should happen when a dir entry is larger than msize-24? Possibly written from a connection with a large msize, and to be read from a connection with a smaller msize? Thank you, Nicola ------------------------------------------ 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T36fa75fb83c81d6d-Ma709ac1a88a1167f9a50ce45 Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
As it often happens to me, a few minutes after hitting send, I am enlightened and embarassed. :-) I had a bit of tunnel vision there, and didn't think of looking at another 9P trace. When I run "9p ls foo/bar" I get the below trace, which answers most of my questions. Tread tag 0 fid 1 offset 0 count 8168 Rread tag 0 count 8109 Tread tag 0 fid 1 offset 8109 count 8168 Rread tag 0 count 5410 Tread tag 0 fid 1 offset 13519 count 8168 Rread tag 0 count 0 I took a quick look at sys/src/cmd/cwfs/9p2.c and I think it shows the server should silently return 0 bytes and no errors, even if the 0-byte return is due to the read buffer not being large enough for the next dir entry. The only question that still stands is the last in my original post: What happens and what should happen when a dir entry is larger than msize-24? Possibly written from a connection with a large msize, and to be read from a connection with a smaller msize? Thanks, Nicola ------------------------------------------ 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T42be63e964005519-Md34dba086f695e0bf63be25f Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
nicolagi via 9fans <9fans@9fans.net> once said: > The only question that still stands is the last in my original post: > What happens and what should happen when a dir entry is larger than > msize-24? Possibly written from a connection with a large msize, and to > be read from a connection with a smaller msize? In that case either the server or client lied about it's msize and is not correctly speaking the 9p protocol. From version(5): The client suggests a maximum message size, msize, that is the maximum length, in bytes, it will ever generate or ex- pect to receive in a single 9P message. This count includes all 9P protocol data, starting from the size field and ex- tending through the message, but excludes enveloping trans- port protocols. The server responds with its own maximum, msize, which must be less than or equal to the client's value. Thenceforth, both sides of the connection must honor this limit. Cheers, Anthony ------------------------------------------ 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T42be63e964005519-Mcceb79ab7dadcad157ebec8a Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
Quoting Anthony Martin <ality@pbrane.org>: > nicolagi via 9fans <9fans@9fans.net> once said: >> The only question that still stands is the last in my original post: >> What happens and what should happen when a dir entry is larger than >> msize-24? Possibly written from a connection with a large msize, and to >> be read from a connection with a smaller msize? > > In that case either the server or client lied about it's > msize and is not correctly speaking the 9p protocol. > >>From version(5): > > The client suggests a maximum message size, msize, that is > the maximum length, in bytes, it will ever generate or ex- > pect to receive in a single 9P message. This count includes > all 9P protocol data, starting from the size field and ex- > tending through the message, but excludes enveloping trans- > port protocols. The server responds with its own maximum, > msize, which must be less than or equal to the client's > value. Thenceforth, both sides of the connection must honor > this limit. Different clients can still negotiate different values for msize. I've written a program to show that the scenario I'm talking about is real. Here's the trace that shows creating a file with an absurdly large name (name omitted): Tversion msize 131072 version '9P2000' Rversion msize 131072 version '9P2000' Tattach fid 1 afid 4294967295 uname 'nicolagi' nuname 4294967295 aname '' Rattach aqid (16061c98c25a5b1c 1 'd') Twalk fid 1 newfid 2 0:'tmp' Rwalk (16061c9a5c4069e4 1 'd') Tcreate fid 2 name 'ality.OMITTED' perm 666 mode 0 Rcreate qid (166b10d3f614e29e 1 '') iounit 0 Tclunk fid 2 Rclunk Listing using a connection with msize 8192 and grepping the new file: ; 9p ls pine/tmp | grep ality | wc -l 0 I can create another file after the absurdly named one, but I can't list it, because the client wrongly detects EOF before reaching that: ; date > another ; ls | grep another | wc -l 0 You can see why I thought a server may return Rerror instead of silently clipping the listing. But it's fine, nobody will generate such large dir entries, I was just confused to find this edge case and around how to handle it. I'll go write some client code to clean up my tmp folder now. :-) ------------------------------------------ 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T65a81624b7b9db0f-Mf45bcfc5bcd0d01d25fda0e1 Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3058 bytes --] On March 9, 2021, Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> wrote: > I was trying to use 9fans/go/plan9/client.Fid.Dirreadall > [https://github.com/9fans/go/blob/master/plan9/client/fid.go#L54-L60] > and found that it returned fewer entries than a single Dirread. The > reason is that Dirreadall uses ioutil.ReadAll which doesn't work > well with a fid corresponding to a directory, because it spuriously > detects io.EOF when in fact there are more dir entries, but none > fits into the read buffer. Fixed, thanks. As for Linux, > When it gets a 0-byte Rread, it tries a new Tread with the largest > possible buffer size (msize=8192 in this connection). You see this > behavior twice above. Only after getting 0-byte Rread twice in a > row, it gives up. > > QUESTION. The last Tread/Rread seems superflous to me. After > enlarging the buffer size from 2758 to 8168 and still getting 0, I'd > think the client could detect EOF. I don't see the point of an > additional Tread of 8168 bytes. Probably the code just always retries with max, even if the buffer was already max'ed. I agree that it seems unnecessary. > QUESTION. But other than that, is that what a client should do for > reading directories? Enlarge the read buffer and see if it still > gets 0 bytes? I'm asking because my initial fix to Dirreadall was to > always issue Treads with count=msize-24, and because I find the > above approach to incur 2x the round trips necessary. Properly, a client should always make sure there are STATMAX bytes available in the read (perhaps limited by msize). > QUESTION. Similarly, is the server supposed to silently return a > 0-byte Rread when no dir entries fit in the response buffer, despite > there being more dir entries available? It would appear that that's what keeps things working. The original Plan 9 dirread and dirreadall did not exercise this case, so there's not likely to be agreement between servers on the answer. > Finally, I noticed the plan9.STATMAX (65535) as the buffer size used > in Dirread (a few lines above Dirreadall). That points to the fact > that in theory that's the max size of a serialized dir entry, which > leads me to ask one last > > QUESTION. What happens and what should happen when a dir entry is > larger than msize-24? Possibly written from a connection with a > large msize, and to be read from a connection with a smaller msize? Probably that should return an error, rather than a silent EOF. It honestly never came up, because first a server would have to let you create a file with an almost-8k name (or else have very long user and group names). disk/kfs limited names to 27 bytes, and fossil limited all strings to 1k. So the max directory entry size in any server anyone ran was under 4k.�� Best, Russ ------------------------------------------ 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T36fa75fb83c81d6d-M1168d8ea3f8e0caf83fb6f27 Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6166 bytes --]
On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 04:00:35PM -0400, Russ Cox wrote: > On March 9, 2021, Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> wrote: > > I was trying to use 9fans/go/plan9/client.Fid.Dirreadall > > [https://github.com/9fans/go/blob/master/plan9/client/fid.go#L54-L60] > > and found that it returned fewer entries than a single Dirread. The > > reason is that Dirreadall uses ioutil.ReadAll which doesn't work > > well with a fid corresponding to a directory, because it spuriously > > detects io.EOF when in fact there are more dir entries, but none > > fits into the read buffer. > > Fixed, thanks. Argh, I totally forgot to send a patch, sorry about that! OTOH, I'm sure it took you a minute or so to fix this issue... Thank you for all the answers. ------------------------------------------ 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T36fa75fb83c81d6d-M733cffffc82853c8d11e70e8 Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription