From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751595AbaJRPYT (ORCPT ); Sat, 18 Oct 2014 11:24:19 -0400 Received: from mailhub.sw.ru ([195.214.232.25]:8484 "EHLO relay.sw.ru" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751511AbaJRPYQ (ORCPT ); Sat, 18 Oct 2014 11:24:16 -0400 From: Dmitry Monakhov To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, hch@infradead.org, Dmitry Monakhov Subject: [PATCH 0/4] fs: fcntl/fadvice fixes v2 Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2014 19:21:24 +0400 Message-Id: <1413645688-13524-1-git-send-email-dmonakhov@openvz.org> X-Mailer: git-send-email 1.9.3 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org fcntl(F_SETFL) and fadvise performs direct manipulation with file's internals. w/o notifying to fs layer. This behavior be not be suitable for some filesystems (mostly stack-fs like ecryptfs, unionfs, etc). Let's introduce new ->set_flags() callback for that purpose. This callback is responsible for flags check so ->check_flags() no longer required. TOC: fs: fcntl add set_flags wrapper -v2 fs: add fadvise file_operation ecryptfs: add fadvise/set_flags calbacks cifs: add set_flag callback *OPEN ISSUE REMAINS* This series does not fix all issues related with set_flags. Race between fcntl(toggling O_DIRECT) vs write() is still possible Usually O_DIRECT checked twice during call chain: ->xxx_file_write_iter --->__generic_file_write_iter So we may end-up up with two different values. Some filesystems (btrfs/xfs) avoid this issue by copy-pasting __generic_file_write_iter. One of possible way to fix this issue it to save flags in kiocb->ki_flags as we already do with ->ki_pos. And fixup all places accordingly. I've calculated numbers of direct access to ->f_flags it is close to 150, half of that number is ->open() methods. So patch would not be gigantic. And finally here is my question to AlViro and Christoph and other VFS-people: *Are you agree with that approach?* Please say your word.