Re: [PATCH] overlay: Plumb through flush method

[Sargun Dhillon <sargun@sargun.me>]

On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 2:32 AM Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 12:16 PM Sargun Dhillon <sargun@sargun.me> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Nov 29, 2020 at 7:00 PM Sargun Dhillon <sargun@sargun.me> wrote:
> > >
> > > Filesystems can implement their own flush method that release
> > > resources, or manipulate caches. Currently if one of these
> > > filesystems is used with overlayfs, the flush method is not called.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Sargun Dhillon <sargun@sargun.me>
> > > Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
> > > Cc: linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org
> > > Cc: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
> > > Cc: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
> > > ---
> > >  fs/overlayfs/file.c | 11 +++++++++++
> > >  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/fs/overlayfs/file.c b/fs/overlayfs/file.c
> > > index efccb7c1f9bc..802259f33c28 100644
> > > --- a/fs/overlayfs/file.c
> > > +++ b/fs/overlayfs/file.c
> > > @@ -787,6 +787,16 @@ static loff_t ovl_remap_file_range(struct file *file_in, loff_t pos_in,
> > >                             remap_flags, op);
> > >  }
> > >
> > > +static int ovl_flush(struct file *file, fl_owner_t id)
> > > +{
> > > +       struct file *realfile = file->private_data;
> > > +
> > > +       if (realfile->f_op->flush)
> > > +               return realfile->f_op->flush(realfile, id);
> > > +
> > > +       return 0;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > >  const struct file_operations ovl_file_operations = {
> > >         .open           = ovl_open,
> > >         .release        = ovl_release,
> > > @@ -798,6 +808,7 @@ const struct file_operations ovl_file_operations = {
> > >         .fallocate      = ovl_fallocate,
> > >         .fadvise        = ovl_fadvise,
> > >         .unlocked_ioctl = ovl_ioctl,
> > > +       .flush          = ovl_flush,
> > >  #ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT
> > >         .compat_ioctl   = ovl_compat_ioctl,
> > >  #endif
> > > --
> > > 2.25.1
> > >
> >
> > Amir, Miklos,
> > Is this acceptable? I discovered this being a problem when we had the discussion
> > of whether the volatile fs should return an error on close on dirty files.
>
> Yes, looks ok.
> Maybe we want to check if the realfile is upper although
> maybe flush can release resources also on read only fs?
>
> >
> > It seems like it would be useful if anyone uses NFS, or CIFS as an upperdir.
>
> They are not supported as upperdir. only FUSE is.
>
> Thanks,
> Amir.

VFS does it on read-only files / mounts, so we should probably do the
same thing.