[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140130152636.GB12687@quack.suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 16:26:36 +0100
From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To: Kim Jaegeuk <jaegeuk.kim@...il.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk.kim@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [git pull] vfs pile 1
On Thu 30-01-14 11:02:49, Kim Jaegeuk wrote:
> 2014-01-29 Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>:
> > On Tue 28-01-14 19:26:08, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 6:25 AM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> >> > Assorted stuff; the biggest pile here is Christoph's ACL series.
> >> > Plus assorted cleanups and fixes all over the place... There will be
> >> > another pile later this week.
> >>
> >> The posix_acl_chmod() code looks wrong.
> >>
> >> Not that it looked right before either, but whatever. The code
> >> basically looks like some variation of this in most setattr()
> >> implementations:
> >>
> >> if (ia_valid & ATTR_MODE)
> >> rc = posix_acl_chmod(inode, inode->i_mode);
> >>
> >> but the mode we're changing to (and what ATTR_MODE guards) is actually
> >> attr->ia_mode, not inode->i_mode.
> > Yes, but posix_acl_chmod() is called after setattr_copy() was done so
> > inode->i_mode should be the same as attr->ia_mode. Whether i_mode or
> > ia_mode is mode logical depends on whether you view posix_acl_chmod() as
> > "sync current i_mode into acls" or "reflect this i_mode change in acls".
> > I agree the function name suggests more the latter semantics.
> >
> >> And quite frankly, passing in inode->i_mode looks stupid, since we're
> >> already passing in the inode pointer, so that's just redundant and
> >> pointless information.
> > Yes, it looks stupid. We could almost drop that argument, except that f2fs
> > tries to play some tricks with i_mode and stores i_mode in a different
> > place when acls are enabled. Huh? Jaegeuk, can you explain why are you
> > doing that?
>
> As described to Christoph before, the reason is for acl consistency
> between on-disk xattr->mode and on-disk inode->mode.
>
> Previously, there are three i_modes managed by:
> inode->mode on-disk xattr->mode on-disk->i_mode
> f2fs_setattr [x] y y
> [update_inode] x y [x]
> [checkpoint] x [y] x
> __f2fs_setxattr x [x] x
>
> In this flow, f2fs is able to break the consistency between on-disk
> xattr->mode and on-disk->i_mode after checkpoint followed by
> sudden-power-off.
>
> So, fi->i_mode was introduced to address the problem.
> The new f2fs_setattr triggers:
> inode->mode fi->i_mode on-disk xattr->mode on-disk->i_mode
> f2fs_setattr y [x] y
> y
> [update_inode] y x y
> y
> [checkpoint] y x y
> y
> __f2fs_setxattr [x] x [x]
> [x]
>
> Finally, __f2fs_setxattr synchronizes inode->mode, on-disk xattr->mode,
> and on-disk inode->i_mode all together.
>
> Am I missing something?
OK, I see. Thanks for explanation.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists