From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59265C43613 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2019 00:56:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38A542075E for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2019 00:56:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1725911AbfFUA4E (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Jun 2019 20:56:04 -0400 Received: from outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu ([18.9.28.11]:59656 "EHLO outgoing.mit.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725906AbfFUA4E (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Jun 2019 20:56:04 -0400 Received: from callcc.thunk.org (guestnat-104-133-0-109.corp.google.com [104.133.0.109] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as tytso@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id x5L0sK0h000800 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 20 Jun 2019 20:54:21 -0400 Received: by callcc.thunk.org (Postfix, from userid 15806) id 28403420484; Thu, 20 Jun 2019 20:54:20 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2019 20:54:20 -0400 From: "Theodore Ts'o" To: "Darrick J. Wong" Cc: matthew.garrett@nebula.com, yuchao0@huawei.com, ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org, josef@toxicpanda.com, clm@fb.com, adilger.kernel@dilger.ca, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, jack@suse.com, dsterba@suse.com, jaegeuk@kernel.org, jk@ozlabs.org, reiserfs-devel@vger.kernel.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, devel@lists.orangefs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-nilfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] mm/fs: don't allow writes to immutable files Message-ID: <20190621005420.GH4650@mit.edu> Mail-Followup-To: Theodore Ts'o , "Darrick J. Wong" , matthew.garrett@nebula.com, yuchao0@huawei.com, ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org, josef@toxicpanda.com, clm@fb.com, adilger.kernel@dilger.ca, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, jack@suse.com, dsterba@suse.com, jaegeuk@kernel.org, jk@ozlabs.org, reiserfs-devel@vger.kernel.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, devel@lists.orangefs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-nilfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org References: <156022836912.3227213.13598042497272336695.stgit@magnolia> <156022837711.3227213.11787906519006016743.stgit@magnolia> <20190620215212.GG4650@mit.edu> <20190620221306.GD5375@magnolia> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190620221306.GD5375@magnolia> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-efi-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 03:13:06PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > I note that this patch doesn't allow writes to swap files. So Amir's > > generic/554 test will still fail for those file systems that don't use > > copy_file_range. > > I didn't add any IS_SWAPFILE checks here, so I'm not sure to what you're > referring? Sorry, my bad; I mistyped. What I should have said is this patch doesn't *prohibit* writes to swap files.... (And so Amir's generic/554 test, even modified so it allow reads from swapfiles, but not writes, when using copy_file_range, is still failing for ext4. I was looking to see if I could remove it from my exclude list, but not yet. :-) > > I'm indifferent as to whether you add a new patch, or include that > > change in this patch, but perhaps we should fix this while we're > > making changes in these code paths? > > The swapfile patches should be in a separate patch, which I was planning > to work on but hadn't really gotten around to it. Ok, great, thanks!! - Ted