Message-ID: <20250428021514.GB6134@sol.localdomain>
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2025 19:15:14 -0700
From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
To: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-bcachefs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] bcachefs fixes for 6.15-rc4

On Sun, Apr 27, 2025 at 09:43:43PM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 27, 2025 at 06:30:59PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 27, 2025 at 08:55:30PM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > > The thing is, that's exactly what we're doing. ext4 and bcachefs both
> > > refer to a specific revision of the folding rules: for ext4 it's
> > > specified in the superblock, for bcachefs it's hardcoded for the moment.
> > > 
> > > I don't think this is the ideal approach, though.
> > > 
> > > That means the folding rules are "whatever you got when you mkfs'd".
> > > Think about what that means if you've got a fleet of machines, of
> > > different ages, but all updated in sync: that's a really annoying way
> > > for gremlins of the "why does this machine act differently" variety to
> > > creep in.
> > > 
> > > What I'd prefer is for the unicode folding rules to be transparently and
> > > automatically updated when the kernel is updated, so that behaviour
> > > stays in sync. That would behave more the way users would expect.
> > > 
> > > But I only gave this real thought just over the past few days, and doing
> > > this safely and correctly would require some fairly significant changes
> > > to the way casefolding works.
> > > 
> > > We'd have to ensure that lookups via the case sensitive name always
> > > works, even if the casefolding table the dirent was created with give
> > > different results that the currently active casefolding table.
> > > 
> > > That would require storing two different "dirents" for each real dirent,
> > > one normalized and one un-normalized, because we'd have to do an
> > > un-normalized lookup if the normalized lookup fails (and vice versa).
> > > Which should be completely fine from a performance POV, assuming we have
> > > working negative dentries.
> > > 
> > > But, if the unicode folding rules are stable enough (and one would hope
> > > they are), hopefully all this is a non-issue.
> > > 
> > > I'd have to gather more input from users of casefolding on other
> > > filesystems before saying what our long term plans (if any) will be.
> > 
> > Wouldn't lookups via the case-sensitive name keep working even if the
> > case-insensitivity rules change?  It's lookups via a case-insensitive name that
> > could start producing different results.  Applications can depend on
> > case-insensitive lookups being done in a certain way, so changing the
> > case-insensitivity rules can be risky.
> 
> No, because right now on a case-insensitive filesystem we _only_ do the
> lookup with the normalized name.

Well, changing the case-insensitivity rules on an existing filesystem breaks the
directory indexing, so when the filesystem does an indexed lookup in a directory
it might no longer look in the right place.  But if the dentry were to be
examined regardless, it would still match.  (Again, assuming that the lookup
uses a name that is case-sensitively the same as the name the file was created
with.  If it's not case-sensitively the same, that's another story.)  ext4 and
f2fs recently added a fallback to a linear search for dentries in "casefolded"
directories, which handle this by no longer relying solely on the directory
indexing.  See commits 9e28059d56649 and 91b587ba79e1b.

- Eric

Powered by blists - more mailing lists