On 2025-05-21 11:36:31, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> On Wed, May 21, 2025 at 10:48 AM Andrey Albershteyn <aalbe...@redhat.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > On 2025-05-19 21:37:04, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 15, 2025 at 12:33:31PM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > > > On Thu, May 15, 2025 at 11:02 AM Christian Brauner <brau...@kernel.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, May 13, 2025 at 11:53:23AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, May 13, 2025, at 11:17, Andrey Albershteyn wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > long syscall(SYS_file_getattr, int dirfd, const char
> > > > > > > *pathname,
> > > > > > > struct fsxattr *fsx, size_t size, unsigned int
> > > > > > > at_flags);
> > > > > > > long syscall(SYS_file_setattr, int dirfd, const char
> > > > > > > *pathname,
> > > > > > > struct fsxattr *fsx, size_t size, unsigned int
> > > > > > > at_flags);
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't think we can have both the "struct fsxattr" from the uapi
> > > > > > headers, and a variable size as an additional argument. I would
> > > > > > still prefer not having the extensible structure at all and just
> > > > >
> > > > > We're not going to add new interfaces that are fixed size unless for
> > > > > the
> > > > > very basic cases. I don't care if we're doing that somewhere else in
> > > > > the
> > > > > kernel but we're not doing that for vfs apis.
> > > > >
> > > > > > use fsxattr, but if you want to make it extensible in this way,
> > > > > > it should use a different structure (name). Otherwise adding
> > > > > > fields after fsx_pad[] would break the ioctl interface.
> > > > >
> > > > > Would that really be a problem? Just along the syscall simply add
> > > > > something like:
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/fs/ioctl.c b/fs/ioctl.c
> > > > > index c91fd2b46a77..d3943805c4be 100644
> > > > > --- a/fs/ioctl.c
> > > > > +++ b/fs/ioctl.c
> > > > > @@ -868,12 +868,6 @@ static int do_vfs_ioctl(struct file *filp,
> > > > > unsigned int fd,
> > > > > case FS_IOC_SETFLAGS:
> > > > > return ioctl_setflags(filp, argp);
> > > > >
> > > > > - case FS_IOC_FSGETXATTR:
> > > > > - return ioctl_fsgetxattr(filp, argp);
> > > > > -
> > > > > - case FS_IOC_FSSETXATTR:
> > > > > - return ioctl_fssetxattr(filp, argp);
> > > > > -
> > > > > case FS_IOC_GETFSUUID:
> > > > > return ioctl_getfsuuid(filp, argp);
> > > > >
> > > > > @@ -886,6 +880,20 @@ static int do_vfs_ioctl(struct file *filp,
> > > > > unsigned int fd,
> > > > > break;
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > + switch (_IOC_NR(cmd)) {
> > > > > + case _IOC_NR(FS_IOC_FSGETXATTR):
> > > > > + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(_IOC_TYPE(cmd) !=
> > > > > _IOC_TYPE(FS_IOC_FSGETXATTR)))
> > > > > + return SOMETHING_SOMETHING;
> > > > > + /* Only handle original size. */
> > > > > + return ioctl_fsgetxattr(filp, argp);
> > > > > +
> > > > > + case _IOC_NR(FFS_IOC_FSSETXATTR):
> > > > > + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(_IOC_TYPE(cmd) !=
> > > > > _IOC_TYPE(FFS_IOC_FSSETXATTR)))
> > > > > + return SOMETHING_SOMETHING;
> > > > > + /* Only handle original size. */
> > > > > + return ioctl_fssetxattr(filp, argp);
> > > > > + }
> > > > > +
> > > >
> > > > I think what Arnd means is that we will not be able to change struct
> > > > sfxattr in uapi
> > > > going forward, because we are not going to deprecate the ioctls and
> > >
> > > There's no need to deprecate anything to rev an ioctl API. We have
> > > had to solve this "changing struct size" problem previously in XFS
> > > ioctls. See XFS_IOC_FSGEOMETRY and the older XFS_IOC_FSGEOMETRY_V4
> > > and XFS_IOC_FSGEOMETRY_V1 versions of the API/ABI.
> > >
> > > If we need to increase the structure size, we can rename the existing
> > > ioctl and struct to fix the version in the API, then use the
> > > original name for the new ioctl and structure definition.
> > >
> > > The only thing we have to make sure of is that the old and new
> > > structures have exactly the same overlapping structure. i.e.
> > > extension must always be done by appending new varibles, they can't
> > > be put in the middle of the structure.
> > >
> > > This way applications being rebuild will pick up the new definition
> > > automatically when the system asserts that it is suppored, whilst
> > > existing binaries will always still be supported by the kernel.
> > >
> > > If the application wants/needs to support all possible kernels, then
> > > if XFS_IOC_FSGEOMETRY is not supported, call XFS_IOC_FSGEOMETRY_V4,
> > > and if that fails (only on really old irix!) or you only need
> > > something in that original subset, call XFS_IOC_FSGEOMETRY_V1 which
> > > will always succeed....
> > >
> > > > Should we will need to depart from this struct definition and we might
> > > > as well do it for the initial release of the syscall rather than later
> > > > on, e.g.:
> > > >
> > > > --- a/include/uapi/linux/fs.h
> > > > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/fs.h
> > > > @@ -148,6 +148,17 @@ struct fsxattr {
> > > > unsigned char fsx_pad[8];
> > > > };
> > > >
> > > > +/*
> > > > + * Variable size structure for file_[sg]et_attr().
> > > > + */
> > > > +struct fsx_fileattr {
> > > > + __u32 fsx_xflags; /* xflags field value (get/set)
> > > > */
> > > > + __u32 fsx_extsize; /* extsize field value
> > > > (get/set)*/
> > > > + __u32 fsx_nextents; /* nextents field value (get)
> > > > */
> > > > + __u32 fsx_projid; /* project identifier (get/set)
> > > > */
> > > > + __u32 fsx_cowextsize; /* CoW extsize field value
> > > > (get/set)*/
> > > > +};
> > > > +
> > > > +#define FSXATTR_SIZE_VER0 20
> > > > +#define FSXATTR_SIZE_LATEST FSXATTR_SIZE_VER0
> > >
> > > If all the structures overlap the same, all that is needed in the
> > > code is to define the structure size that should be copied in and
> > > parsed. i.e:
> > >
> > > case FSXATTR..._V1:
> > > return ioctl_fsxattr...(args, sizeof(fsx_fileattr_v1));
> > > case FSXATTR..._V2:
> > > return ioctl_fsxattr...(args, sizeof(fsx_fileattr_v2));
> > > case FSXATTR...:
> > > return ioctl_fsxattr...(args, sizeof(fsx_fileattr));
> > >
> > > -Dave.
> > > --
> > > Dave Chinner
> > > da...@fromorbit.com
> > >
> >
> > So, looks like there's at least two solutions to this concern.
> > Considering also that we have a bit of space in fsxattr,
> > 'fsx_pad[8]', I think it's fine to stick with the current fsxattr
> > for now.
>
> Not sure which two solutions you are referring to.
Suggested by Christian and Dave
>
> I proposed fsx_fileattr as what I think is the path of least resistance.
> There are opinions that we may be able to avoid defining
> this struct, but I don't think there was any objection to adding it.
>
> So unless I am missing an objection that I did not understand
> define it and get over this hurdle?
I see, sure, I misinterpreted the communication :) no problems, I
will create 'struct fsx_fileattr' then.
Pali, ah sorry, I forgot that you will extend fsxattr right away
--
- Andrey
