Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 11 May 2022 13:21:13 -0400
From:   Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
To:     Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
Cc:     Bernd Schubert <bschubert@ddn.com>,
        Dharmendra Hans <dharamhans87@gmail.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        fuse-devel <fuse-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] FUSE: Implement atomic lookup + open/create
Message-ID: <YnvwiZ+s+y3VDUMW@redhat.com>
References: <20220502102521.22875-1-dharamhans87@gmail.com>
 <YnLRnR3Xqu0cYPdb@redhat.com>
 <CACUYsyEsRph+iFC_fj3F6Ceqhq7NCTuFPH3up8R6C+_bGHktZg@mail.gmail.com>
 <YnPI6f2fRZUXbCFP@redhat.com>
 <882fbf7f-a56b-1e82-a158-9e2186ec7c4c@ddn.com>
 <YnQsizX5Q1sMnlI2@redhat.com>
 <CAJfpegseGaWHkjdQj7XiR=TQNFpPZzDF_rTXces2oRz=x0N7OA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAJfpegseGaWHkjdQj7XiR=TQNFpPZzDF_rTXces2oRz=x0N7OA@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 11:40:59AM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Thu, 5 May 2022 at 21:59, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > Oh, I have no issues with the intent. I will like to see cut in network
> > traffic too (if we can do this without introducing problems). My primary
> > interest is that this kind of change should benefit virtiofs as well.
> 
> One issue with that appears to be checking permissions.   AFAIU this
> patchset only enables the optimization if default_permissions is
> turned off (i.e. all permission checking is done by the server).  But
> virtiofs uses the default_permissions model.

IIUC, only 3rd patch mentions that default_permission should be turned
off. IOW, first patch where lookup + create + open is a single operation
and second patch which does "lookup + open" in a single operation does
not seem to require that default_permissions are not in effect.

So if first two patches work fine, I think virtiofs should benefit too.
(IMHO, 3rd patch is too hacky anyway)

W.r.t permission checks, looks like may_open() will finally be called
after ->atomic_open(). So even if we open the file, we should still be
able to check whether we have permissions to open the file or not
after the fact.

fs/namei.c

path_openat()
{
	open_last_lookups()  <--- This calls ->atomic_open()
	do_open()  <--- This calls may_open()
}

Thanks
Vivek

> 
> I'm not quite sure about this limitation, guessing that it's related
> to the fact that the permissions may be stale at the time of checking?
> 
> Thanks,
> Miklos
>