Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-147003-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Message-ID: <b74f99e8-5a50-4e93-987f-0bcfc0c27959@kernel.dk>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2024 08:22:54 -0600
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: API break, sysfs "capability" file
Content-Language: en-US
To: Lennart Poettering <mzxreary@0pointer.de>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>,
 Linux regressions mailing list <regressions@lists.linux.dev>,
 linux-block@vger.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <ZhQJf8mzq_wipkBH@gardel-login>
 <54e3c969-3ee8-40d8-91d9-9b9402001d27@leemhuis.info>
 <ZhQ6ZBmThBBy_eEX@kbusch-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
 <ZhRSVSmNmb_IjCCH@gardel-login>
 <ZhRyhDCT5cZCMqYj@kbusch-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
 <ZhT5_fZ9SrM0053p@gardel-login> <20240409141531.GB21514@lst.de>
 <d7a2b07c-26eb-4d55-8aa7-137168bd0b49@kernel.dk>
 <Zh6IpqnSfGHXMjVa@gardel-login>
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
In-Reply-To: <Zh6IpqnSfGHXMjVa@gardel-login>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 4/16/24 8:18 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Di, 09.04.24 09:17, Jens Axboe (axboe@kernel.dk) wrote:
> 
>> On 4/9/24 8:15 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 10:19:09AM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>>>> All I am looking for is a very simple test that returns me a boolean:
>>>> is there kernel-level partition scanning enabled on this device or
>>>> not.
>>>
>>> And we can add a trivial sysfs attribute for that.
>>
>> And I think we should. I don't know what was being smoked adding a sysfs
>> interface that exposed internal flag values - and honestly what was
>> being smoked to rely on that, but I think it's fair to say that the
>> majority of the fuckup here is on the kernel side.
> 
> Yeah, it's a shitty interface, the kernel is rich in that. But it was
> excessively well documented, better in fact than almost all other
> kernel interfaces:
> 
> ? https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v5.16/block/capability.html ?
> 
> If you document something on so much detail in the API docs, how do
> you expect this *not* to be relied on by userspace.

This is _internal_ documentation, not user ABI documentation. The fact
that it's talking about internal flag values should make that clear,
though I can definitely see how that's just badly exposed along with
other things that document things that users/admins could care about.

-- 
Jens Axboe