All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>,
	virtio-fs-list <virtio-fs@redhat.com>
Cc: Linux fsdevel mailing list <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Robert Krawitz <rkrawitz@redhat.com>
Subject: [Virtio-fs] Query about fuse ->sync_fs and virtiofs
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2021 10:59:19 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210412145919.GE1184147@redhat.com> (raw)

Hi Miklos,

Robert Krawitz drew attention to the fact that fuse does not seem to
have a ->sync_fs implementation. That probably means that in case of
virtiofs, upon sync()/syncfs(), host cache will not be written back
to disk. And that's not something people expect.

I read somewhere that fuse did not implement ->sync_fs because file
server might not be trusted and it could block sync().

In case of virtiofs, file server is trusted entity (w.r.t guest kernel),
so it probably should be ok to implement ->sync_fs atleast for virtiofs?

Was looking for your thoughts on this before I look into implementing it.

Thanks
Vivek


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>,
	virtio-fs-list <virtio-fs@redhat.com>
Cc: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@redhat.com>,
	Greg Kurz <groug@kaod.org>,
	Linux fsdevel mailing list <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Robert Krawitz <rkrawitz@redhat.com>
Subject: Query about fuse ->sync_fs and virtiofs
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2021 10:59:19 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210412145919.GE1184147@redhat.com> (raw)

Hi Miklos,

Robert Krawitz drew attention to the fact that fuse does not seem to
have a ->sync_fs implementation. That probably means that in case of
virtiofs, upon sync()/syncfs(), host cache will not be written back
to disk. And that's not something people expect.

I read somewhere that fuse did not implement ->sync_fs because file
server might not be trusted and it could block sync().

In case of virtiofs, file server is trusted entity (w.r.t guest kernel),
so it probably should be ok to implement ->sync_fs atleast for virtiofs?

Was looking for your thoughts on this before I look into implementing it.

Thanks
Vivek


             reply	other threads:[~2021-04-12 14:59 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-04-12 14:59 Vivek Goyal [this message]
2021-04-12 14:59 ` Query about fuse ->sync_fs and virtiofs Vivek Goyal
2021-04-12 15:08 ` [Virtio-fs] " Miklos Szeredi
2021-04-12 15:08   ` Miklos Szeredi
2021-04-14 11:56   ` [Virtio-fs] " Greg Kurz
2021-04-14 11:56     ` Greg Kurz
2021-04-14 11:58     ` [Virtio-fs] " Miklos Szeredi
2021-04-14 11:58       ` Miklos Szeredi

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20210412145919.GE1184147@redhat.com \
    --to=vgoyal@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=miklos@szeredi.hu \
    --cc=rkrawitz@redhat.com \
    --cc=virtio-fs@redhat.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.