Re: [PATCH 07/11] vfs: copy_file_range should update file timestamps

Darrick J. Wong
2018-12-03T18:22:25Z

On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 12:33:50PM -0500, Olga Kornievskaia wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 5:47 AM Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 10:34 AM Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
> > >
> > > Timestamps are not updated right now, so programs looking for
> > > timestamp updates for file modifications (like rsync) will not
> > > detect that files have changed. We are also accessing the source
> > > data when doing a copy (but not when cloning) so we need to update
> > > atime on the source file as well.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
> > > ---
> > > fs/read_write.c | 10 ++++++++++
> > > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/fs/read_write.c b/fs/read_write.c
> > > index 3b101183ea19..3288db1d5f21 100644
> > > --- a/fs/read_write.c
> > > +++ b/fs/read_write.c
> > > @@ -1576,6 +1576,16 @@ static ssize_t do_copy_file_range(struct file *file_in, loff_t pos_in,
> > > {
> > > ssize_t ret;
> > >
> > > + /* Update source timestamps, because we are accessing file data */
> > > + file_accessed(file_in);
> > > +
> > > + /* Update destination timestamps, since we can alter file contents. */
> > > + if (!(file_out->f_mode & FMODE_NOCMTIME)) {
> > > + ret = file_update_time(file_out);
> > > + if (ret)
> > > + return ret;
> > > + }
> > > +
> >
> > If there is a consistency about who is responsible of calling file_accessed()
> > and file_update_time() it eludes me. grep tells me that they are mostly
> > handled by filesystem code or generic helpers called by filesystem code
> > and not in the vfs helpers.
> >
> > FMODE_NOCMTIME seems like an xfs specific flag (for DMAPI?), which
> > most generic callers of file_update_time() completely ignore.
> > This seems like another argument in favor of leaving the responsibility
> > of the timestamp updates to the filesystem.
> >
> > Maybe I am missing something?
> >
>
> I had similar question before about who is responsible for doing the
> checks. I agree that attributes should be updated for the case when no
> filesystem support exist for copy_file_range() but this code does it
> for all the cases. I also wonder if it's appropriate to update the
> attributes before the copy is actually done?

The other functions that change file contents (write, clonerange) update
mtime and remove suid before initiating the operation. For mtime I
think we should maintain consistent behavior, and for suid removal we
definitely need to revoke that before we change the file contents.

--D

> > Thanks,
> > Amir.