Re: [PATCH] copy_file_range.2: Kernel v5.12 updates

[Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>]

On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 12:19 AM Alejandro Colomar (man-pages)
<alx.manpages@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello Amir, Luis,
>
> On 2/24/21 5:10 PM, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 4:22 PM Luis Henriques <lhenriques@suse.de> wrote:
> >>
> >> Update man-page with recent changes to this syscall.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Luis Henriques <lhenriques@suse.de>
> >> ---
> >> Hi!
> >>
> >> Here's a suggestion for fixing the manpage for copy_file_range().  Note that
> >> I've assumed the fix will hit 5.12.
> >>
> >>   man2/copy_file_range.2 | 10 +++++++++-
> >>   1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/man2/copy_file_range.2 b/man2/copy_file_range.2
> >> index 611a39b8026b..b0fd85e2631e 100644
> >> --- a/man2/copy_file_range.2
> >> +++ b/man2/copy_file_range.2
> >> @@ -169,6 +169,9 @@ Out of memory.
> >>   .B ENOSPC
> >>   There is not enough space on the target filesystem to complete the copy.
> >>   .TP
> >> +.B EOPNOTSUPP
>
> I'll add the kernel version here:
>
> .BR EOPNOTSUPP " (since Linux 5.12)"

Error could be returned prior to 5.3 and would be probably returned
by future stable kernels 5.3..5.12 too

>
> >> +The filesystem does not support this operation >> +.TP
> >>   .B EOVERFLOW
> >>   The requested source or destination range is too large to represent in the
> >>   specified data types.
> >> @@ -187,7 +190,7 @@ refers to an active swap file.
> >>   .B EXDEV
> >>   The files referred to by
> >>   .IR fd_in " and " fd_out
> >> -are not on the same mounted filesystem (pre Linux 5.3).
> >> +are not on the same mounted filesystem (pre Linux 5.3 and post Linux 5.12).
>
> I'm not sure that 'mounted' adds any value here.  Would you remove the
> word here?

See rename(2). 'mounted' in this context is explained there.
HOWEVER, it does not fit here.
copy_file_range() IS allowed between two mounts of the same filesystem instance.

To make things more complicated, it appears that cross mount clone is not
allowed via FICLONE/FICLONERANGE ioctl, so ioctl_ficlonerange(2) man page
also uses the 'mounted filesystem' terminology for EXDEV

As things stand now, because of the fallback to clone logic,
copy_file_range() provides a way for users to clone across different mounts
of the same filesystem instance, which they cannot do with the FICLONE ioctl.

Fun :)

BTW, I don't know if preventing cross mount clone was done intentionally,
but as I wrote in a comment in the code once:

        /*
         * FICLONE/FICLONERANGE ioctls enforce that src and dest files are on
         * the same mount. Practically, they only need to be on the same file
         * system.
         */

>
> It reads as if two separate devices with the same filesystem type would
> still give this error.
>
> Per the LWN.net article Amir shared, this is permitted ("When called
> from user space, copy_file_range() will only try to copy a file across
> filesystems if the two are of the same type").
>
> This behavior was slightly different before 5.3 AFAICR (was it?) ("until
> then, copy_file_range() refused to copy between files that were not
> located on the same filesystem.").  If that's the case, I'd specify the
> difference, or more probably split the error into two, one before 5.3,
> and one since 5.12.
>

True.

> >
> > I think you need to drop the (Linux range) altogether.
>
> I'll keep the range.  Users of 5.3..5.11 might be surprised if the
> filesystems are different and they don't get an error, I think.
>
> I reworded it to follow other pages conventions:
>
> .BR EXDEV " (before Linux 5.3; or since Linux 5.12)"
>
> which renders as:
>
>         EXDEV (before Linux 5.3; or since Linux 5.12)
>                The files referred to by fd_in and fd_out are not on
>                the same mounted filesystem.
>

drop 'mounted'

>
> > What's missing here is the NFS cross server copy use case.
> > Maybe:
> >
> > ...are not on the same mounted filesystem and the source and target filesystems
> > do not support cross-filesystem copy.
>
> Yes.
>
> Again, this wasn't true before 5.3, right?
>

Right.
Actually, v5.3 provides the vfs capabilities for filesystems to support
cross fs copy. I am not sure if NFS already implements cross fs copy in
v5.3 and not sure about cifs. Need to get input from nfs/cis developers
or dig in the release notes for server-side copy.

> >
> > You may refer the reader to VERSIONS section where it will say which
> > filesystems support cross-fs copy as of kernel version XXX (i.e. cifs and nfs).
> >
> >>   .SH VERSIONS
> >>   The
> >>   .BR copy_file_range ()
> >> @@ -202,6 +205,11 @@ Applications should target the behaviour and requirements of 5.3 kernels.
> >>   .PP
> >>   First support for cross-filesystem copies was introduced in Linux 5.3.
> >>   Older kernels will return -EXDEV when cross-filesystem copies are attempted.
> >> +.PP
> >> +After Linux 5.12, support for copies between different filesystems was dropped.
> >> +However, individual filesystems may still provide
> >> +.BR copy_file_range ()
> >> +implementations that allow copies across different devices.
> >
> > Again, this is not likely to stay uptodate for very long.
> > The stable kernels are expected to apply your patch (because it fixes
> > a regression)
> > so this should be phrased differently.
> > If it were me, I would provide all the details of the situation to
> > Michael and ask him
> > to write the best description for this section.
>
> I'll look into more detail at this part in a later review.
>
>
> On 2/26/21 11:34 AM, Amir Goldstein wrote:
>  > Is this detailed enough? ;-)
>  >
>  > https://lwn.net/Articles/846403/
>
> Yes, it is!
>

Thanks to LWN :)

Thanks,
Amir.