Re: [patch 4/8] fs, exportfs: Add export_encode_inode_fh helper

[Al Viro]

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 06:15:53PM +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 02:03:00PM +0000, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > > What's wrong with saying "we don't support idiotify"?
> > > 
> > > Al, we need some way to restore inotifies after checkpoint.
> > > At the very early versions of these patches I simply added
> > > dentry to the inotify mark thus once inotify created we always
> > > have a dentry to refer on in encode_fh, but I'm not sure if
> > > this will be good design.
> > 
> > Actually, I was about to suggest this.  This can be done internally
> > within fs/notify without actually modifying the syscall interface, can't
> > it, since they take a path which is used to obtain the inode?  It looks
> > like the whole of the inotify interface could be internally recast to
> > use dentries instead of inodes.  Unless I've missed something obvious?
> 
> Well, after looking into do_sys_name_to_handle->exportfs_encode_fh
> sequence more precisely it seems it will be easier to extend
> exportfs_encode_fh to support inodes directly instead of playing
> with notify code (again, if i'm not missing something too).
> i'm cooking a patch to show (once it's tested i'll send it out).

Good luck doing that with e.g. VFAT...  And then there's such thing
as filesystems that don't have ->encode_fh() for a lot of very good
reasons; just try to do that on sysfs, for example.  Or on ramfs,
for that matter...  And while saying "you can't export that over
NFS" seems to work fine, idiotify-lovers will screech if you try
to ban their perversion of choice on those filesystems.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/