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=-2.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY,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 C815CC43218 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 03:26:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EF602086D for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 03:26:21 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=oracle.com header.i=@oracle.com header.b="lTw3n6sf" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2390950AbfFKD0T (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Jun 2019 23:26:19 -0400 Received: from aserp2130.oracle.com ([141.146.126.79]:37150 "EHLO aserp2130.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2390856AbfFKD0T (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Jun 2019 23:26:19 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (aserp2130.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by aserp2130.oracle.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x5B3JYbq122570; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 03:26:09 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=oracle.com; h=date : from : to : cc : subject : message-id : references : mime-version : content-type : in-reply-to; s=corp-2018-07-02; bh=+KMHTpIPHehmYr7PrnoKeQGFw46qVIvlu8jfHMIONJs=; b=lTw3n6sfAuJxerQIcWvvAzMYQN+AqtCPDfst2dOgTcdT2K7l70GXNYMqGHsNnCdk6wWJ c7B8KxtKCiw/HIyg0TzHinvugM77U16TWDIV4RUqydwstE2v/O6WmbklmNTHt9ONL6Hf 8nix+RvdOj4fFnrZWzqEqBGocz0+c/cYECmtDtfNx42zPkkJePXJWXe7Hh7CPw4YOW9s 4yqshFav8Do/yNkdOJCBXL2mI4X3yT493ZlzXH1rdALCUQWxVW53N8gWI7PU+/0hSDva e/vYpQcoD4tQPYop3LFIttJa/6DA6+oherOHnagItEI4/fDKCBn6gnQuy8H0a/HVH5Zq ug== Received: from aserp3020.oracle.com (aserp3020.oracle.com [141.146.126.70]) by aserp2130.oracle.com with ESMTP id 2t02hejhjw-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 11 Jun 2019 03:26:09 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (aserp3020.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by aserp3020.oracle.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x5B3Q8lN021788; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 03:26:09 GMT Received: from userv0121.oracle.com (userv0121.oracle.com [156.151.31.72]) by aserp3020.oracle.com with ESMTP id 2t0p9r2a63-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 11 Jun 2019 03:26:08 +0000 Received: from abhmp0018.oracle.com (abhmp0018.oracle.com [141.146.116.24]) by userv0121.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.13.8) with ESMTP id x5B3Q4J4008815; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 03:26:04 GMT Received: from localhost (/67.169.218.210) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Mon, 10 Jun 2019 20:26:04 -0700 Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2019 20:26:03 -0700 From: "Darrick J. Wong" To: "Theodore Ts'o" 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 Message-ID: <20190611032603.GB1872258@magnolia> References: <155552786671.20411.6442426840435740050.stgit@magnolia> <155552787330.20411.11893581890744963309.stgit@magnolia> <20190610015145.GB3266@mit.edu> <20190610044144.GA1872750@magnolia> <20190610131417.GD15963@mit.edu> <20190610160934.GH1871505@magnolia> <20190610204154.GA5466@mit.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190610204154.GA5466@mit.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9284 signatures=668687 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1906110021 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9284 signatures=668687 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1906110021 Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org 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. > > 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. 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