From: Xiao Yang <yangx.jy@cn.fujitsu.com>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>, <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
Cc: <linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org>, <ira.weiny@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] xfs: Add check for unsupported xflags
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2020 15:49:40 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5F573794.2040700@cn.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200906230105.GO12131@dread.disaster.area>
On 2020/9/7 7:01, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 04, 2020 at 09:14:25AM +0800, Xiao Yang wrote:
>> On 2020/9/3 15:46, Dave Chinner wrote:
>>> On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 11:57:13AM +0800, Xiao Yang wrote:
>>>> Current ioctl(FSSETXATTR) ignores unsupported xflags silently
>>>> so it is not clear for user to know unsupported xflags.
>>>> For example, use ioctl(FSSETXATTR) to set dax flag on kernel
>>>> v4.4 which doesn't support dax flag:
>>>> --------------------------------
>>>> # xfs_io -f -c "chattr +x" testfile;echo $?
>>>> 0
>>>> # xfs_io -c "lsattr" testfile
>>>> ----------------X testfile
>>>> --------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Add check to return -EOPNOTSUPP as ext4/f2fs/btrfs does.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Xiao Yang<yangx.jy@cn.fujitsu.com>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong<darrick.wong@oracle.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> fs/xfs/xfs_ioctl.c | 12 ++++++++++++
>>>> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_ioctl.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_ioctl.c
>>>> index 6f22a66777cd..59f9a86f29f7 100644
>>>> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_ioctl.c
>>>> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_ioctl.c
>>>> @@ -1425,6 +1425,14 @@ xfs_ioctl_setattr_check_projid(
>>>> return 0;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> +#define XFS_SUPPORTED_FS_XFLAGS \
>>>> + (FS_XFLAG_REALTIME | FS_XFLAG_PREALLOC | FS_XFLAG_IMMUTABLE | \
>>>> + FS_XFLAG_APPEND | FS_XFLAG_SYNC | FS_XFLAG_NOATIME | FS_XFLAG_NODUMP | \
>>>> + FS_XFLAG_RTINHERIT | FS_XFLAG_PROJINHERIT | FS_XFLAG_NOSYMLINKS | \
>>>> + FS_XFLAG_EXTSIZE | FS_XFLAG_EXTSZINHERIT | FS_XFLAG_NODEFRAG | \
>>>> + FS_XFLAG_FILESTREAM | FS_XFLAG_DAX | FS_XFLAG_COWEXTSIZE | \
>>>> + FS_XFLAG_HASATTR)
>>>> +
>>>> STATIC int
>>>> xfs_ioctl_setattr(
>>>> xfs_inode_t *ip,
>>>> @@ -1439,6 +1447,10 @@ xfs_ioctl_setattr(
>>>>
>>>> trace_xfs_ioctl_setattr(ip);
>>>>
>>>> + /* Check if fsx_xflags has unsupported xflags */
>>>> + if (fa->fsx_xflags& ~XFS_SUPPORTED_FS_XFLAGS)
>>>> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>>> I don't think we can do this as it may break existing applications
>>> that have been working on XFS for many, many years that don't
>>> correctly initialise fsx_xflags....
>> Hi Dave,
>>
>> It seems that the only way is to keep the current behavior. :-(
> Yes, unfortunately that is the case, but it does follow precedence
> set by other syscalls with unchecked flags such as open() - they
> mask off unknown flags so they don't do anything, but they do not
> return an error if any unknown flag is set.
>
>> By the way, _require_xfs_io_command "chattr" in xfstests cannot check XFS's
>> unsupported xflags directly because of the behavior, so we may need to check
>> them by extra xfs_io -c "lsattr".
> *nod*
Hi Darrick, Dave
I had another confusion when trying to add extra xfs_io -c "lsattr" in
xfstests:
--------------------------------------------------
# xfs_io -f -c "chattr +tPn" file
# xfs_io -f -c "lsattr" file
----------------X file
# xfs_io -f -c "chattr +E" file
xfs_io: cannot set flags on file: Invalid argument
--------------------------------------------------
These four flags are invalid for a regular file , but kernel maskes off
three flags and returns EINVAL for 'E' flag.
kernel can mask off all four flags for a regular file, so is it
necessary for 'E' flag to return EINVAL?
fs/xfs/xfs_ioctl.c:
-------------------------------------------------
1160 if (S_ISDIR(VFS_I(ip)->i_mode)) {
1161 if (xflags & FS_XFLAG_RTINHERIT)
1162 di_flags |= XFS_DIFLAG_RTINHERIT;
1163 if (xflags & FS_XFLAG_NOSYMLINKS)
1164 di_flags |= XFS_DIFLAG_NOSYMLINKS;
1165 if (xflags & FS_XFLAG_EXTSZINHERIT)
1166 di_flags |= XFS_DIFLAG_EXTSZINHERIT;
1167 if (xflags & FS_XFLAG_PROJINHERIT)
1168 di_flags |= XFS_DIFLAG_PROJINHERIT;
-------------------------------------------------
fs/inode.c:
-------------------------------------------------
2356 if ((fa->fsx_xflags & FS_XFLAG_EXTSZINHERIT) &&
2357 !S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode))
2358 return -EINVAL;
-------------------------------------------------
I think the behavior of chattr command seems inconsistent/messy.
Best Regards,
Xiao Yang
> Cheers,
>
> Dave.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-09-08 7:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-09-03 3:57 [PATCH v3] xfs: Add check for unsupported xflags Xiao Yang
2020-09-03 7:46 ` Dave Chinner
2020-09-04 1:14 ` Xiao Yang
2020-09-06 23:01 ` Dave Chinner
2020-09-08 7:49 ` Xiao Yang [this message]
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=5F573794.2040700@cn.fujitsu.com \
--to=yangx.jy@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=darrick.wong@oracle.com \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=ira.weiny@intel.com \
--cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
/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