Re: [PATCH] nfsd: Fix error return values for nfsd4_clone_file_range()

[Olga Kornievskaia <aglo@umich.edu>]

On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 11:32 AM J. Bruce Fields <bfields@fieldses.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 12:50:09AM -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > On Thu, 2019-01-24 at 19:46 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 03:58:38PM -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > > > If the parameter 'count' is non-zero, nfsd4_clone_file_range() will
> > > > currently clobber all errors returned by vfs_clone_file_range() and
> > > > replace them with EINVAL.
> > >
> > > Oops, thanks for the fix.  I'm still a little confused, though:
> ...
> > > > diff --git a/fs/nfsd/vfs.c b/fs/nfsd/vfs.c
> > > > index 9824e32b2f23..7dc98e14655d 100644
> > > > --- a/fs/nfsd/vfs.c
> > > > +++ b/fs/nfsd/vfs.c
> > > > @@ -557,9 +557,11 @@ __be32 nfsd4_clone_file_range(struct file
> > > > *src, u64 src_pos, struct file *dst,
> > > >   loff_t cloned;
> > > >
> > > >   cloned = vfs_clone_file_range(src, src_pos, dst, dst_pos,
> > > > count, 0);
> > > > + if (cloned < 0)
> > > > +         return nfserrno(cloned);
> > > >   if (count && cloned != count)
> > > > -         cloned = -EINVAL;
> > > > - return nfserrno(cloned < 0 ? cloned : 0);
> > > > +         return nfserrno(-EINVAL);
> > > > + return 0;
> > >
> > > I still don't understand the cloned != count case.  I thought clone
> > > was
> > > supposed to be all-or-nothing and atomic, can it really return a
> > > short
> > > copy?  And how is that inval, shouldn't that be serverfault?
> >
> > That, quite frankly, seems like more of a question for Darrick, not me.
> > I haven't changed that part of the code.
> >
> > The main thing I care about is being able to correctly report
> > EOPNOTSUPP errors for the vast majority of filesystems that don't
> > support clone() or dedup().
>
> Makes sense, and I'm happy just to apply this and then sort out the rest in a
> subsequent patch, but I'd really like to understand; Darrick?:
>
> ioctl_file_clone also converts short copies to EINVAL:
>
>         if (cloned < 0)
>                 ret = cloned;
>         else if (olen && cloned != olen)
>                 ret = -EINVAL;
>         else
>                 ret = 0;
>
> Maybe that happens iff we hit EOF in the short file?
>
> Does that mean we can successfully copy up to EOF and then return -EINVAL?
> That sounds wrong.
>
> There's a man page (IOCTL-FICLONERANGE(2)) but it doesn't cover this case.

I thought cloned by definition was all or nothing meaning there can't
be a "short" clone. If you allow for less then asked bytes to be
returned, then your next offsets might not be block aligned.