Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 22 Oct 2020 17:17:45 +0100
From:   Alessio Balsini <balsini@android.com>
To:     Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
Cc:     Alessio Balsini <balsini@android.com>,
        Akilesh Kailash <akailash@google.com>,
        Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>,
        Antonio SJ Musumeci <trapexit@spawn.link>,
        David Anderson <dvander@google.com>,
        Giuseppe Scrivano <gscrivan@redhat.com>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
        Martijn Coenen <maco@android.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
        Paul Lawrence <paullawrence@google.com>,
        Stefano Duo <stefanoduo@google.com>,
        Zimuzo Ezeozue <zezeozue@google.com>,
        fuse-devel <fuse-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>,
        kernel-team <kernel-team@android.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V9 3/4] fuse: Introduce synchronous read and write for
 passthrough
Message-ID: <20201022161745.GC36774@google.com>
References: <20200924131318.2654747-1-balsini@android.com>
 <20200924131318.2654747-4-balsini@android.com>
 <CAJfpegu=0QtzqSOGi_yd48eL3hgG1Hqf_YO2prWeiHBwwMHZyA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAJfpegu=0QtzqSOGi_yd48eL3hgG1Hqf_YO2prWeiHBwwMHZyA@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 08:50:46PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > [...]
> > +ssize_t fuse_passthrough_read_iter(struct kiocb *iocb_fuse,
> > +                                  struct iov_iter *iter)
> > +{
> > +       ssize_t ret;
> > +       const struct cred *old_cred;
> > +       struct file *fuse_filp = iocb_fuse->ki_filp;
> > +       struct fuse_file *ff = fuse_filp->private_data;
> > +       struct file *passthrough_filp = ff->passthrough_filp;
> > +
> > +       if (!iov_iter_count(iter))
> > +               return 0;
> > +
> > +       old_cred = fuse_passthrough_override_creds(fuse_filp);
> > +       if (is_sync_kiocb(iocb_fuse)) {
> > +               ret = vfs_iter_read(passthrough_filp, iter, &iocb_fuse->ki_pos,
> > +                                   iocbflags_to_rwf(iocb_fuse->ki_flags));
> > +       } else {
> > +               ret = -EIO;
> > +       }
> 
> Just do vfs_iter_read() unconditionally, instead of returning EIO.
> It will work fine, except it won't be async.
> 
> Yeah, I know next patch is going to fix this, but still, lets not make
> this patch return silly errors.
> 
> > [...]
> > +ssize_t fuse_passthrough_write_iter(struct kiocb *iocb_fuse,
> > +                                   struct iov_iter *iter)
> > +{
> > +       ssize_t ret;
> > +       const struct cred *old_cred;
> > +       struct file *fuse_filp = iocb_fuse->ki_filp;
> > +       struct fuse_file *ff = fuse_filp->private_data;
> > +       struct inode *fuse_inode = file_inode(fuse_filp);
> > +       struct file *passthrough_filp = ff->passthrough_filp;
> > +
> > +       if (!iov_iter_count(iter))
> > +               return 0;
> > +
> > +       inode_lock(fuse_inode);
> > +
> > +       old_cred = fuse_passthrough_override_creds(fuse_filp);
> > +       if (is_sync_kiocb(iocb_fuse)) {
> > +               file_start_write(passthrough_filp);
> > +               ret = vfs_iter_write(passthrough_filp, iter, &iocb_fuse->ki_pos,
> > +                                   iocbflags_to_rwf(iocb_fuse->ki_flags));
> > +               file_end_write(passthrough_filp);
> > +               if (ret > 0)
> > +                       fuse_copyattr(fuse_filp, passthrough_filp);
> > +       } else {
> > +               ret = -EIO;
> > +       }
> 
> And the same here.
> 

Ack, adding both to the upcoming patch set.

Thanks,
Alessio