From: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
To: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
Cc: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] mm/fs: don't allow writes to immutable files
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2019 20:26:03 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190611032603.GB1872258@magnolia> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190610204154.GA5466@mit.edu>
On Mon, Jun 11, 2019 at 04:41:54PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 09:09:34AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > I was planning on only taking 8/8 through the ext4 tree. I also added
> > > a patch which filtered writes, truncates, and page_mkwrites (but not
> > > mmap) for immutable files at the ext4 level.
> >
> > *Oh*. I saw your reply attached to the 1/8 patch and thought that was
> > the one you were taking. I was sort of surprised, tbh. :)
>
> Sorry, my bad. I mis-replied to the wrong e-mail message :-)
>
> > > I *could* take this patch through the mm/fs tree, but I wasn't sure
> > > what your plans were for the rest of the patch series, and it seemed
> > > like it hadn't gotten much review/attention from other fs or mm folks
> > > (well, I guess Brian Foster weighed in).
> >
> > > What do you think?
> >
> > Not sure. The comments attached to the LWN story were sort of nasty,
> > and now that a couple of people said "Oh, well, Debian documented the
> > inconsistent behavior so just let it be" I haven't felt like
> > resurrecting the series for 5.3.
>
> Ah, I had missed the LWN article. <Looks>
>
> Yeah, it's the same set of issues that we had discussed when this
> first came up. We can go round and round on this one; It's true that
> root can now cause random programs which have a file mmap'ed for
> writing to seg fault, but root has a million ways of killing and
> otherwise harming running application programs, and it's unlikely
> files get marked for immutable all that often. We just have to pick
> one way of doing things, and let it be same across all the file
> systems.
>
> My understanding was that XFS had chosen to make the inode immutable
> as soon as the flag is set (as opposed to forbidding new fd's to be
> opened which were writeable), and I was OK moving ext4 to that common
> interpretation of the immmutable bit, even though it would be a change
> to ext4.
<nod> It started as "just do this to xfs" and has now become a vfs level
change...
> And then when I saw that Amir had included a patch that would cause
> test failures unless that patch series was applied, it seemed that we
> had all thought that the change was a done deal. Perhaps we should
> have had a more explicit discussion when the test was sent for review,
> but I had assumed it was exclusively a copy_file_range set of tests,
> so I didn't realize it was going to cause ext4 failures.
And here we see the inconsistent behavior causing developer confusion. :)
I think Amir's c_f_r tests just check the existing behavior (of just
c_f_r) that you can't (most of the time) copy into a file that you
opened for write but that the administrator has since marked immutable.
/That/ behavior in turn came from the original implementation that would
try reflink which would fail on the immutable destination check and then
fail the whole call ... I think?
--D
> - Ted
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-06-11 3:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-04-17 19:04 [PATCH v2 0/8] vfs: make immutable files actually immutable Darrick J. Wong
2019-04-17 19:04 ` [PATCH 1/8] mm/fs: don't allow writes to immutable files Darrick J. Wong
2019-04-26 18:17 ` Brian Foster
2019-06-10 1:43 ` Theodore Ts'o
2019-06-10 1:51 ` Theodore Ts'o
2019-06-10 4:41 ` Darrick J. Wong
2019-06-10 13:14 ` Theodore Ts'o
2019-06-10 16:09 ` Darrick J. Wong
2019-06-10 20:41 ` Theodore Ts'o
2019-06-11 3:26 ` Darrick J. Wong [this message]
2019-06-11 4:01 ` Darrick J. Wong
2019-04-17 19:04 ` [PATCH 2/8] xfs: unlock inode when xfs_ioctl_setattr_get_trans can't get transaction Darrick J. Wong
2019-04-26 18:17 ` Brian Foster
2019-04-17 19:04 ` [PATCH 3/8] xfs: flush page mappings as part of setting immutable Darrick J. Wong
2019-04-26 18:18 ` Brian Foster
2019-04-17 19:04 ` [PATCH 4/8] xfs: refactor setflags to use setattr code directly Darrick J. Wong
2019-04-17 19:05 ` [PATCH 5/8] xfs: clean up xfs_merge_ioc_xflags Darrick J. Wong
2019-04-17 19:05 ` [PATCH 6/8] xfs: don't allow most setxattr to immutable files Darrick J. Wong
2019-04-17 19:05 ` [PATCH 7/8] btrfs: don't allow any modifications to an immutable file Darrick J. Wong
2019-04-17 19:05 ` [PATCH 8/8] ext4: " Darrick J. Wong
2019-04-30 15:46 ` [PATCH v2 0/8] vfs: make immutable files actually immutable David Sterba
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190611032603.GB1872258@magnolia \
--to=darrick.wong@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).