Hi,

On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 9:22 AM Jean-Pierre André <
jean-pierre.andre-39ZsbGIQGT5GWvitb5QawA@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> Al Viro wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 11:53:40PM +0100, Jose Lopes wrote:
> >> Syscall 'ftruncate' makes the 'file' struct available to filesystem
> >> handlers. This makes it possible, e.g., for filesystems, such as,
> >> FUSE, to access the file handle associated with the file descriptor
> >> that was passed to 'ftruncate'. In the specific case of FUSE, this
> >> also makes it possible for (userspace) FUSE-based filesystems to
> >> distinguish between calls to 'truncate' and 'ftruncate'.
> >
> > Why FUSE is such a precious snowflake that it needs to make that
> distinction,
> > unlike all other filesystems?
>
> For fuse file system which delegate the permission checks
> to user space (and have to do so because of cacheing
> issues), the write permission has to be checked for
> truncate(), and not checked for ftruncate() : the file
> may have been opened for writing and then its permissions
> set to read-only before the ftruncate() is requested.
> The user space file system can check current permissions,
> not the ones which were set when the file was opened.
>

+1 what Jean-Pierre said.

Also, I work on a FUSE-based network filesystem and the fact that we cannot
distinguish between calls to fchmod and chmod produces incorrect results.
For example, in the cases where a file was unlinked or moved, calling fchmod
should apply the change directly in the open file. However, since the fchmod
call arrives to FUSE as chmod (because of the missing file handle), FUSE
will
try to resolve the path to get to the open file, which fails because the
file was
moved or unlinked, or it will apply the change to the wrong file if in the
meantime
another file was open under the same path of the previous file.


>
> Jean-Pierre
>