From: Kirill Smelkov <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: Miklos Szeredi <email@example.com>, Miklos Szeredi <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: Han-Wen Nienhuys <email@example.com>, Jakob Unterwurzacher <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Kirill Tkhai <email@example.com>, Andrew Morton <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <email@example.com>, <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <email@example.com>, Kirill Smelkov <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: [RESEND4, PATCH 0/2] fuse: don't stuck clients on retrieve_notify with size > max_write Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 10:15:10 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <email@example.com> (raw) Miklos, On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 01:45:20PM +0300, Kirill Smelkov wrote: > Miklos, > > On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 02:47:57PM +0300, Kirill Smelkov wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 09:10:15AM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 9:39 PM Kirill Smelkov <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > > > > > > I more or less agree with this statement. However can we please make the > > > > breakage to be explicitly visible with an error instead of exhibiting it > > > > via harder to debug stucks/deadlocks? For example sys_read < max_write > > > > -> error instead of getting stuck. And if notify_retrieve requests > > > > buffer larger than max_write -> error or cut to max_write, but don't > > > > return OK when we know we will never send what was requested to > > > > filesystem even if it uses max_write sized reads. What is the point of > > > > breaking in hard to diagnose way when we can make the breakage showing > > > > itself explicitly? Would a patch for such behaviour accepted? > > > > > > Sure, if it's only adds a couple of lines. Adding more than say ten > > > lines for such a non-bug fix is definitely excessive. > > > > Ok, thanks. Please consider applying the following patch. (It's a bit > > pity to hear the problem is not considered to be a bug, but anyway). > > > > I will also send the second patch as another mail, since I could not > > made `git am --scissors` to apply several patched extracted from one > > mail successfully. > > [...] > > On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 12:34:21PM +0300, Kirill Smelkov wrote: > > Ping. Miklos, is there anything wrong with this patch and its > > second counterpart? > > As we were talking here are those patches. The first one cuts notify_retrieve > request to max_write and is one line only. The second one returns error to > filesystem server if it is buggy and does sys_read with buffer size < > max_write. It is 2 lines of code and 7 lines of comments. > > I still think that the patches fix real bugs. It is a bug if server behaviour > is a bit non-confirming or simply on an edge of being correct or questionable, > and instead of properly getting plain error from kernel, the whole system gets > stuck. It is a bug because bug amplification factor here is at least one order > of magnitude instead of staying ~1x. > > I'm sending the patches for the third time already, but did not get any > feedback. Could you please have a look? It's been ~ 1 month already since we agreed on the approach and initial postings of the patches that follow the agreed way: https://lwn.net/ml/linux-fsdevel/20190228114757.GA2796@deco.navytux.spb.ru/ Since then the patches were resent several times but without getting any feedback from you. Is there anything wrong with the patches? Could you please have a look? I understand everyone is busy but 1 month seems to be too much and I'm wondering whether maybe my mails got classified as spam or something else on your side. Thanks beforehand, Kirill Kirill Smelkov (2): fuse: retrieve: cap requested size to negotiated max_write fuse: require /dev/fuse reads to have enough buffer capacity as negotiated fs/fuse/dev.c | 12 +++++++++++- 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) -- 184.108.40.2062.gf8f6787159
next reply other threads:[~2019-03-27 10:44 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2019-03-27 10:15 Kirill Smelkov [this message] 2019-03-27 10:15 ` [RESEND4, PATCH 2/2] fuse: require /dev/fuse reads to have enough buffer capacity as negotiated Kirill Smelkov 2019-04-24 10:48 ` Miklos Szeredi 2019-04-24 11:58 ` Kirill Smelkov 2019-03-27 10:15 ` [RESEND4, PATCH 1/2] fuse: retrieve: cap requested size to negotiated max_write Kirill Smelkov 2019-04-24 10:44 ` Miklos Szeredi 2019-04-24 11:56 ` Kirill Smelkov 2019-04-24 12:17 ` Miklos Szeredi 2019-04-24 12:31 ` Kirill Smelkov 2019-04-24 13:19 ` Miklos Szeredi 2019-04-24 14:22 ` Kirill Smelkov 2019-04-24 15:02 ` Miklos Szeredi 2019-04-24 18:10 ` Kirill Smelkov 2019-04-24 18:59 ` Kirill Smelkov
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 \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --subject='Re: [RESEND4, PATCH 0/2] fuse: don'\''t stuck clients on retrieve_notify with size > max_write' \ /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
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).