linux-ext4 - Re: cross-fs copy support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 2 Oct 2018 10:15:44 +0200
From:   David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>
To:     Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>
Cc:     Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...deen.net>,
        Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@....com>,
        Joshi <joshiiitr@...il.com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: cross-fs copy support

On Mon, Oct 01, 2018 at 01:51:09PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > Yes, I would expect there to be problems with his modified kernel
> > for a filesystem that supports clone_file_range, because
> > vfs_copy_file_range() will clone if possible, and this should fail across
> > filesystems.
> > 
> > In general, though, I don't know for sure why we don't fall back to
> > do_splice_direct() across filesystems, although the filesystems that
> > implement their own ->copy_file_range ops may have their own,
> > further restrictions within their implementations.
> > 
> > This call /is/ documented in the manpage as only being valid for
> > files on the same filesystem, though:
> > http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/copy_file_range.2.html
> 
> There was a patch to allow cross-mount copy for NFS, but it hasn't landed
> yet.

I found https://marc.info/?l=linux-nfs&m=144138779721907&w=2 that lifts
the VFS check (part of a series that can't be easily linked to).

The lack of cross-mount reflink (based on the copy_file_ragne) is often
confusing users, there are common setups that mount subvolumes
separately and reflinking between them would require mount of the
toplevel subvolume.

If there are 2 in-kernel users of the relaxed cross-mount copy, I think
this would help to push the series forward.