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;
From:   Luis Henriques <lhenriques@suse.de>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>,
        Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>,
        Nicolas Boichat <drinkcat@chromium.org>,
        "Darrick J . Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com>,
        Luis Lozano <llozano@chromium.org>,
        Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] fs: Add flag to file_system_type to indicate
 content is generated
References: <20210212044405.4120619-1-drinkcat@chromium.org>
        <20210212124354.1.I7084a6235fbcc522b674a6b1db64e4aff8170485@changeid>
        <YCYybUg4d3+Oij4N@kroah.com>
        <CAOQ4uxhovoZ4S3WhXwgYDeOeomBxfQ1BdzSyGdqoVX6boDOkeA@mail.gmail.com>
        <YCY+tjPgcDmgmVD1@kroah.com> <871rdljxtx.fsf@suse.de>
        <YCZyBZ1iT+MUXLu1@kroah.com>
Date:   Fri, 12 Feb 2021 12:41:48 +0000
In-Reply-To: <YCZyBZ1iT+MUXLu1@kroah.com> (Greg KH's message of "Fri, 12 Feb
        2021 13:18:13 +0100")
Message-ID: <87sg61ihkj.fsf@suse.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> writes:

> On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 12:05:14PM +0000, Luis Henriques wrote:
>> Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> writes:
>> 
>> > On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 10:22:16AM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 9:49 AM Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 12:44:00PM +0800, Nicolas Boichat wrote:
>> >> > > Filesystems such as procfs and sysfs generate their content at
>> >> > > runtime. This implies the file sizes do not usually match the
>> >> > > amount of data that can be read from the file, and that seeking
>> >> > > may not work as intended.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > This will be useful to disallow copy_file_range with input files
>> >> > > from such filesystems.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Signed-off-by: Nicolas Boichat <drinkcat@chromium.org>
>> >> > > ---
>> >> > > I first thought of adding a new field to struct file_operations,
>> >> > > but that doesn't quite scale as every single file creation
>> >> > > operation would need to be modified.
>> >> >
>> >> > Even so, you missed a load of filesystems in the kernel with this patch
>> >> > series, what makes the ones you did mark here different from the
>> >> > "internal" filesystems that you did not?
>> >> >
>> >> > This feels wrong, why is userspace suddenly breaking?  What changed in
>> >> > the kernel that caused this?  Procfs has been around for a _very_ long
>> >> > time :)
>> >> 
>> >> That would be because of (v5.3):
>> >> 
>> >> 5dae222a5ff0 vfs: allow copy_file_range to copy across devices
>> >> 
>> >> The intention of this change (series) was to allow server side copy
>> >> for nfs and cifs via copy_file_range().
>> >> This is mostly work by Dave Chinner that I picked up following requests
>> >> from the NFS folks.
>> >> 
>> >> But the above change also includes this generic change:
>> >> 
>> >> -       /* this could be relaxed once a method supports cross-fs copies */
>> >> -       if (file_inode(file_in)->i_sb != file_inode(file_out)->i_sb)
>> >> -               return -EXDEV;
>> >> -
>> >> 
>> >> The change of behavior was documented in the commit message.
>> >> It was also documented in:
>> >> 
>> >> 88e75e2c5 copy_file_range.2: Kernel v5.3 updates
>> >> 
>> >> I think our rationale for the generic change was:
>> >> "Why not? What could go wrong? (TM)"
>> >> I am not sure if any workload really gained something from this
>> >> kernel cross-fs CFR.
>> >
>> > Why not put that check back?
>> >
>> >> In retrospect, I think it would have been safer to allow cross-fs CFR
>> >> only to the filesystems that implement ->{copy,remap}_file_range()...
>> >
>> > Why not make this change?  That seems easier and should fix this for
>> > everyone, right?
>> >
>> >> Our option now are:
>> >> - Restore the cross-fs restriction into generic_copy_file_range()
>> >
>> > Yes.
>> >
>> 
>> Restoring this restriction will actually change the current cephfs CFR
>> behaviour.  Since that commit we have allowed doing remote copies between
>> different filesystems within the same ceph cluster.  See commit
>> 6fd4e6348352 ("ceph: allow object copies across different filesystems in
>> the same cluster").
>> 
>> Although I'm not aware of any current users for this scenario, the
>> performance impact can actually be huge as it's the difference between
>> asking the OSDs for copying a file and doing a full read+write on the
>> client side.
>
> Regression in performance is ok if it fixes a regression for things that
> used to work just fine in the past :)
>
> First rule, make it work.

Sure, I just wanted to point out that *maybe* there are other options than
simply reverting that commit :-)

Something like the patch below (completely untested!) should revert to the
old behaviour in filesystems that don't implement the CFR syscall.

Cheers,
-- 
Luis

diff --git a/fs/read_write.c b/fs/read_write.c
index 75f764b43418..bf5dccc43cc9 100644
--- a/fs/read_write.c
+++ b/fs/read_write.c
@@ -1406,8 +1406,11 @@ static ssize_t do_copy_file_range(struct file *file_in, loff_t pos_in,
 						       file_out, pos_out,
 						       len, flags);
 
-	return generic_copy_file_range(file_in, pos_in, file_out, pos_out, len,
-				       flags);
+	if (file_inode(file_in)->i_sb != file_inode(file_out)->i_sb)
+		return -EXDEV;
+	else
+		generic_copy_file_range(file_in, pos_in, file_out, pos_out, len,
+					flags);
 }
 
 /*