lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Feb]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 11/19] afs: Support fsinfo() [ver #16]
On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 1:59 PM David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> wrote:
> Jann Horn <jannh@google.com> wrote:
>
> > Ewww. So basically, having one static set of .fsinfo_attributes is not
> > sufficiently flexible for everyone, but instead of allowing the
> > filesystem to dynamically provide a list of supported attributes, you
> > just duplicate the super_operations? Seems to me like it'd be cleaner
> > to add a function pointer to the super_operations that can dynamically
> > fill out the supported fsinfo attributes.
> >
> > It seems to me like the current API is going to be a dead end if you
> > ever want to have decent passthrough of these things for e.g. FUSE, or
> > overlayfs, or VirtFS?
>
> Ummm...
>
> Would it be sufficient to have a function that returns a list of attributes?
> Or does it need to be able to call to vfs_do_fsinfo() if it supports an
> attribute?
>
> There are two things I want to be able to do:
>
> (1) Do the buffer wrangling in the core - which means the core needs to see
> the type of the attribute. That's fine if, say, afs_fsinfo() can call
> vfs_do_fsinfo() with the definition for any attribute it wants to handle
> and, say, return -ENOPKG otherways so that the core can then fall back to
> its private list.
>
> (2) Be able to retrieve the list of attributes and/or query an attribute.
> Now, I can probably manage this even through the same interface. If,
> say, seeing FSINFO_ATTR_FSINFO_ATTRIBUTES causes the handler to simply
> append on the IDs of its own supported attributes (a helper can be
> provided for that).
>
> If it sees FSINFO_ATR_FSINFO_ATTRIBUTE_INFO, it can just look to see if
> it has the attribute with the ID matching Nth and return that, else
> ENOPKG - again a helper could be provided.
>
> Chaining through overlayfs gets tricky. You end up with multiple contributory
> filesystems with different properties - and any one of those layers could
> perhaps be another overlay. Overlayfs would probably needs to integrate the
> info and derive the lowest common set.

Hm - I guess just returning a list of attributes ought to be fine?
Then AFS can just return one of its two statically-allocated attribute
lists there, and a filesystem with more complicated circumstances
(like FUSE or overlayfs or whatever) can compute a heap-allocated list
on mount that is freed when the superblock goes away, or something
like that?

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-02-20 15:59    [W:0.238 / U:0.156 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site