From: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
To: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
Cc: Aishwarya.TCV@arm.com, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>,
linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, broonie@kernel.org,
ltp@lists.linux.it
Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH] NFS: add atomic_open for NFSv3 to handle O_TRUNC correctly.
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2024 10:18:17 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240614081817.GA168224@pevik> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAOQ4uxgyHrTR_-b5tKdtuCoyoKdrVWb=-h-CbiSP2pHVHM--CQ@mail.gmail.com>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 10:12 AM Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz> wrote:
> > > On Tue, 11 Jun 2024, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 5:30 AM NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de> wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, 07 Jun 2024, James Clark wrote:
> > > > > > Hi Neil,
> > > > > > Now that your fix is in linux-next the statvfs01 test is passing again.
> > > > > > However inotify02 is still failing.
> > > > > > This is because the test expects the IN_CREATE and IN_OPEN events to
> > > > > > come in that order after calling creat(), but now they are reversed. To
> > > > > > me it seems like it could be a test issue and the test should handle
> > > > > > them in either order? Or maybe there should be a single inotify event
> > > > > > with both flags set for the atomic open?
> > > > > Interesting.... I don't see how any filesystem that uses ->atomic_open
> > > > > would get these in the "right" order - and I do think IN_CREATE should
> > > > > come before IN_OPEN.
> > > > Correct.
> > > > > Does NFSv4 pass this test?
> > > > Probably not.
> > > > > IN_OPEN is generated (by fsnotify_open()) when finish_open() is called,
> > > > > which must be (and is) called by all atomic_open functions.
> > > > > IN_CREATE is generated (by fsnotify_create()) when open_last_lookups()
> > > > > detects that FMODE_CREATE was set and that happens *after* lookup_open()
> > > > > is called, which calls atomic_open().
> > > > > For filesystems that don't use atomic_open, the IN_OPEN is generated by
> > > > > the call to do_open() which happens *after* open_last_lookups(), not
> > > > > inside it.
> > > > Correct.
> > > > > So the ltp test must already fail for NFSv4, 9p ceph fuse gfs2 ntfs3
> > > > > overlayfs smb.
> > > > inotify02 does not run on all_filesystems, only on the main test fs,
> > > > which is not very often one of the above.
> > > > This is how I averted the problem in fanotify16 (which does run on
> > > > all_filesystems):
> > > > commit 9062824a70b8da74aa5b1db08710d0018b48072e
> > > > Author: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
> > > > Date: Tue Nov 21 12:52:47 2023 +0200
> > > > fanotify16: Fix test failure on FUSE
> > > > Split SAFE_CREAT() into explicit SAFE_MKNOD() and SAFE_OPEN(),
> > > > because with atomic open (e.g. fuse), SAFE_CREAT() generates FAN_OPEN
> > > > before FAN_CREATE (tested with ntfs-3g), which is inconsistent with
> > > > the order of events expected from other filesystems.
> > > > inotify02 should be fixed similarly.
> > > Alternately - maybe the kernel should be fixed to always get the order
> > > right.
> > > I have a patch. I'll post it separately.
> > @Amir, if later Neil's branch get merged, maybe we should use on fanotify16
> > creat() on the old kernels (as it was in before your fix 9062824a7 ("fanotify16:
> > Fix test failure on FUSE")), based on kernel check.
> I am hoping that the fix could be backported to v6.9.y and then we
> won't need to worry about older LTS kernels for fanotify16, because
> fuse only supports FAN_CREATE since v6.8.
Great! Thanks for info.
Kind regards,
Petr
> Thanks,
> Amir.
--
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp
prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-06-14 8:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <171134496555.13576.1334297096866165638@noble.neil.brown.name>
2024-05-28 10:52 ` [LTP] [PATCH] NFS: add atomic_open for NFSv3 to handle O_TRUNC correctly James Clark
2024-05-28 21:50 ` NeilBrown
2024-06-07 10:49 ` James Clark
2024-06-11 2:29 ` NeilBrown
2024-06-11 6:44 ` Amir Goldstein
2024-06-12 1:59 ` NeilBrown
2024-06-12 7:12 ` Petr Vorel
2024-06-13 10:26 ` Amir Goldstein
2024-06-14 8:18 ` Petr Vorel [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=20240614081817.GA168224@pevik \
--to=pvorel@suse.cz \
--cc=Aishwarya.TCV@arm.com \
--cc=amir73il@gmail.com \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ltp@lists.linux.it \
--cc=neilb@suse.de \
/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