Re: [PATCH] erofs: don't bother with s_stack_depth increasing for now

[Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@linux.alibaba.com>]

Hi Amir,

On 2026/1/1 23:52, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 31, 2025 at 9:42 PM Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@linux.alibaba.com> wrote:
>>
>> Previously, commit d53cd891f0e4 ("erofs: limit the level of fs stacking
>> for file-backed mounts") bumped `s_stack_depth` by one to avoid kernel
>> stack overflow, but it breaks composefs mounts, which need erofs+ovl^2
>> sometimes (and such setups are already used in production for quite long
>> time) since `s_stack_depth` can be 3 (i.e., FILESYSTEM_MAX_STACK_DEPTH
>> needs to change from 2 to 3).
>>
>> After a long discussion on GitHub issues [1] about possible solutions,
>> it seems there is no need to support nesting file-backed mounts as one
>> conclusion (especially when increasing FILESYSTEM_MAX_STACK_DEPTH to 3).
>> So let's disallow this right now, since there is always a way to use
>> loopback devices as a fallback.
>>
>> Then, I started to wonder about an alternative EROFS quick fix to
>> address the composefs mounts directly for this cycle: since EROFS is the
>> only fs to support file-backed mounts and other stacked fses will just
>> bump up `FILESYSTEM_MAX_STACK_DEPTH`, just check that `s_stack_depth`
>> != 0 and the backing inode is not from EROFS instead.
>>
>> At least it works for all known file-backed mount use cases (composefs,
>> containerd, and Android APEX for some Android vendors), and the fix is
>> self-contained.
>>
>> Let's defer increasing FILESYSTEM_MAX_STACK_DEPTH for now.
>>
>> Fixes: d53cd891f0e4 ("erofs: limit the level of fs stacking for file-backed mounts")
>> Closes: https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-tracker/issues/2087 [1]
>> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/r/CAFHtUiYv4+=+JP_-JjARWjo6OwcvBj1wtYN=z0QXwCpec9sXtg@mail.gmail.com
>> Cc: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
>> Cc: Alexander Larsson <alexl@redhat.com>
>> Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
>> Cc: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@redhat.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@linux.alibaba.com>
>> ---
> 
> Acked-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
> 
> But you forgot to include details of the stack usage analysis you ran
> with erofs+ovl^2 setup.
> 
> I am guessing people will want to see this information before relaxing
> s_stack_depth in this case.

Sorry I didn't check emails these days, I'm not sure if posting
detailed stack traces are useful, how about adding the following
words:

Note: There are some observations while evaluating the erofs + ovl^2
setup with an XFS backing fs:

  - Regular RW workloads traverse only one overlayfs layer regardless of
    the value of FILESYSTEM_MAX_STACK_DEPTH, because `upperdir=` cannot
    point to another overlayfs.  Therefore, for pure RW workloads, the
    typical stack is always just:
      overlayfs + upper fs + underlay storage

  - For read-only workloads and the copy-up read part (ovl_splice_read),
    the difference can lie in how many overlays are nested.
    The stack just looks like either:
      ovl + ovl [+ erofs] + backing fs + underlay storage
    or
      ovl [+ erofs] + ext4/xfs + underlay storage

  - The fs reclaim path should be entered only once, so the writeback
    path will not re-enter.

Sorry about my English, and I'm not sure if it's enough (e.g. FUSE
passthrough part).  I will look for your further inputs (and other
acks) before sending this patch upstream.

(Also btw, i'm not sure if it's possible to optimize read_iter and
  splice_read stack usage even further in overlayfs, e.g. just
  recursive handling real file/path directly in the top overlayfs
  since the permission check is already done when opening the file.)

Thanks,
Gao Xiang

> 
> Thanks,
> Amir.