Re: [RESEND4, PATCH 1/2] fuse: retrieve: cap requested size to negotiated max_write

[Kirill Smelkov]

On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 05:02:42PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 4:22 PM Kirill Smelkov <kirr@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > - FUSE_PRECISE_INVAL_DATA:
> >
> >     --- b/include/uapi/linux/fuse.h
> >     +++ b/include/uapi/linux/fuse.h
> >     @@ -266,7 +266,7 @@
> >       * FUSE_MAX_PAGES: init_out.max_pages contains the max number of req pages
> >       * FUSE_CACHE_SYMLINKS: cache READLINK responses
> >       * FUSE_NO_OPENDIR_SUPPORT: kernel supports zero-message opendir
> >     - * FUSE_PRECISE_INVAL_DATA: filesystem is fully responsible for data cache invalidation
> >     + * FUSE_PRECISE_INVAL_DATA: filesystem is fully responsible for invalidation
> >       */
> >      #define FUSE_ASYNC_READ                (1 << 0)
> >      #define FUSE_POSIX_LOCKS       (1 << 1)
> >
> > the "data cache" in "for data cache invalidation" has particular meaning
> > and semantic: the filesystem promises to explicitly invalidate data of
> 
> Right; better name: FUSE_EXPLICIT_INVAL_DATA.  Will push fixed version.

	- * FUSE_PRECISE_INVAL_DATA: filesystem is fully responsible for invalidation
	+ * FUSE_EXPLICIT_INVAL_DATA: only invalidate cached pages on explicit request

	...

	        /** Filesystem is fully reponsible for page cache invalidation. */
	-       unsigned precise_inval_data:1;
	+       unsigned explicit_inval_data:1;

Ok, let it be this way.


> > Your amendment for FOPEN_STREAM in uapi/linux/fuse.h (see above) also
> > suggests that it is better to be more explicit in that file.
> >
> >     --- b/fs/fuse/inode.c
> >     +++ b/fs/fuse/inode.c
> >     @@ -913,13 +913,8 @@
> >                                     fc->dont_mask = 1;
> >                             if (arg->flags & FUSE_AUTO_INVAL_DATA)
> >                                     fc->auto_inval_data = 1;
> >     -                       if (arg->flags & FUSE_PRECISE_INVAL_DATA)
> >     +                       else if (arg->flags & FUSE_PRECISE_INVAL_DATA)
> >                                     fc->precise_inval_data = 1;
> >     -                       if (fc->auto_inval_data && fc->precise_inval_data) {
> >     -                               pr_warn("filesystem requested both auto and "
> >     -                                       "precise cache control - using auto\n");
> >     -                               fc->precise_inval_data = 0;
> >     -                       }
> >                             if (arg->flags & FUSE_DO_READDIRPLUS) {
> >                                     fc->do_readdirplus = 1;
> >                                     if (arg->flags & FUSE_READDIRPLUS_AUTO)
> >
> > Even though it is ok for me personally (I could be careful and use only
> > FUSE_PRECISE_INVAL_DATA) I still think usage of both "auto" and "precise"
> > invalidation modes deserves a warning. It is only at filesystem init time. What
> > is the reason not to print it?
> 
> The warning makes no sense.  It should either be failure or silent override.

Ok.


> > - "fuse: retrieve: cap requested size to negotiated max_write"
> >
> >      Signed-off-by: Kirill Smelkov <kirr@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >      Cc: Han-Wen Nienhuys <hanwen@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >      Cc: Jakob Unterwurzacher <jakobunt@xxxxxxxxx>
> >     -Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # v2.6.36+
> >
> > what is the reason not to include this patch into stable series?
> 
> This doens't fix any bugs out there, but there is a slight chance of
> regression (so it might possibly have to be reverted in the future) so
> it absolutely makes no sense to backport it to stable.

Ok.


Thanks again for tossing the patches,

Kirill