Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-97359-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2024 12:13:17 -0500
From: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@linux.dev>
To: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>
Cc: Neal Gompa <neal@gompa.dev>, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, 
	linux-bcachefs@vger.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 
	Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>, Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@redhat.com>, 
	Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>, David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] statx: stx_subvol
Message-ID: <6czkpcm4gxcjik3drcy6eys6lannfk55oowdesem2qr3gfgobw@lblo3vzck43e>
References: <20240308022914.196982-1-kent.overstreet@linux.dev>
 <CAEg-Je96OKs_LOXorNVj1a1=e+1f=-gw34v4VWNOmfKXc6PLSQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <i2oeask3rxxd5w4k7ikky6zddnr2qgflrmu52i7ah6n4e7va26@2qmghvmb732p>
 <CAEg-Je_URgYd6VJL5Pd=YDGQM=0T5tspfnTvgVTMG-Ec1fTt6g@mail.gmail.com>
 <2uk6u4w7dp4fnd3mrpoqybkiojgibjodgatrordacejlsxxmxz@wg5zymrst2td>
 <20240308165633.GO6184@frogsfrogsfrogs>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240308165633.GO6184@frogsfrogsfrogs>

On Fri, Mar 08, 2024 at 08:56:33AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 08, 2024 at 11:48:31AM -0500, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > It's a new feature, not a bugfix, this should never get backported. And
> > I the bcachefs maintainer wrote the patch, and I'm submitting it to the
> > VFS maintainer, so if it's fine with him it's fine with me.
> 
> But then how am I supposed to bikeshed the structure of the V2 patchset
> by immediately asking you to recombine the patches and spit out a V3?
> 
> </sarcasm>
> 
> But, seriously, can you update the manpage too?

yeah, where's that at?

> Is stx_subvol a u64
> cookie where userspace mustn't try to read anything into its contents?
> Just like st_ino and st_dev are (supposed) to be?

Actually, that's up for debate. I'm considering having the readdir()
equivalent for walking subvolumes return subvolume IDs, and then there'd
be a separate call to open by ID.

Al's idea was to return open fds to child subvolumes, then userspace can
get the path from /proc; that's also a possibility.

The key thing is that with subvolumes it's actually possible to do an
open_by_id() call with correct security checks on pathwalking - because
we don't have hardlinks so there's no ambiguity.

Or we might do it getdents() style and return the path directly.

But I think userspace is going to want to work with the volume
identifiers directly, which is partly why I'm considering why other
options might be cleaner.

Another thing to consider: where we're going with this is giving
userspace a good efficient interrface for recursive tree traversal of
subvolumes, but it might not be a bad idea to do that for mountpoints as
well - similar problems, similar scalability issues that we might want
to solve eventually.

> Should the XFS data and rt volumes be reported with different stx_vol
> values?

Maybe?