From: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@linux.dev>
To: linux-bcachefs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@linux.dev>,
brauner@kernel.org, sforshee@kernel.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,
jack@suse.cz
Subject: [PATCH 0/3] io path options + reflink (mild security implications)
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2024 22:35:32 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20241112033539.105989-1-kent.overstreet@linux.dev> (raw)
so, I've been fleshing out various things at the intersection of io path
options + rebalance + reflink, and this is the last little bit
background: bcachefs has io path options that can be set filesystem
wide, or per inode, and when changed rebalance automatically picks them
up and does the right thing
reflink adds a wrinkle, which is that we'd like e.g. recursively setting
the foreground/background targets on some files to move them to the
appropriate device (or nr_replicas etc.), like other data - but if a
user did a reflink copy of some other user's data and then set
nr_replicas=1, that would be bad.
so this series adds a flag to reflink pointers for "may propagate option
changes", which can then be set at remap_file_range() time based on
vfs level permission checks.
so, question for everyone: is write access to the source file what we
want? or should it be stricter, i.e. ownership matches?
then, we're currently missing mnt_idmap plumbing to remap_file_range()
to do said permissions checks - do we want to do that? or is there an
easier way?
Kent Overstreet (3):
bcachefs: BCH_SB_VERSION_INCOMPAT
bcachefs: bcachefs_metadata_version_reflink_p_may_update_opts
bcachefs: Option changes now get propagated to reflinked data
fs/bcachefs/bcachefs.h | 2 ++
fs/bcachefs/bcachefs_format.h | 28 +++++++++++--------
fs/bcachefs/fs-io.c | 9 ++++++-
fs/bcachefs/move.c | 51 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
fs/bcachefs/recovery.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++---
fs/bcachefs/reflink.c | 18 ++++++++++---
fs/bcachefs/reflink.h | 3 ++-
fs/bcachefs/reflink_format.h | 2 ++
fs/bcachefs/super-io.c | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
fs/bcachefs/super-io.h | 18 ++++++++++---
10 files changed, 172 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)
--
2.45.2
next reply other threads:[~2024-11-12 3:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-11-12 3:35 Kent Overstreet [this message]
2024-11-12 3:35 ` [PATCH 1/3] bcachefs: BCH_SB_VERSION_INCOMPAT Kent Overstreet
2024-11-12 3:35 ` [PATCH 2/3] bcachefs: bcachefs_metadata_version_reflink_p_may_update_opts Kent Overstreet
2024-11-12 3:35 ` [PATCH 3/3] bcachefs: Option changes now get propagated to reflinked data Kent Overstreet
2024-11-12 10:53 ` [PATCH 0/3] io path options + reflink (mild security implications) Jan Kara
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=20241112033539.105989-1-kent.overstreet@linux.dev \
--to=kent.overstreet@linux.dev \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-bcachefs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sforshee@kernel.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox