Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAOQ4uxiFGjdvX2-zh5o46pn7RZhvbGHH0wpzLPuPOom91FwWeQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210215154317.8590-1-lhenriques@suse.de> <CAOQ4uxgjcCrzDkj-0ukhvHRgQ-D+A3zU5EAe0A=s1Gw2dnTJSA@mail.gmail.com>
 <73ab4951f48d69f0183548c7a82f7ae37e286d1c.camel@hammerspace.com>
In-Reply-To: <73ab4951f48d69f0183548c7a82f7ae37e286d1c.camel@hammerspace.com>
From:   Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 15 Feb 2021 19:24:32 +0200
Message-ID: <CAOQ4uxgPtqG6eTi2AnAV4jTAaNDbeez+Xi2858mz1KLGMFntfg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] vfs: prevent copy_file_range to copy across devices
To:     Trond Myklebust <trondmy@hammerspace.com>
Cc:     "lhenriques@suse.de" <lhenriques@suse.de>,
        "samba-technical@lists.samba.org" <samba-technical@lists.samba.org>,
        "drinkcat@chromium.org" <drinkcat@chromium.org>,
        "iant@google.com" <iant@google.com>,
        "linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org>,
        "darrick.wong@oracle.com" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "jlayton@kernel.org" <jlayton@kernel.org>,
        "anna.schumaker@netapp.com" <anna.schumaker@netapp.com>,
        "llozano@chromium.org" <llozano@chromium.org>,
        "miklos@szeredi.hu" <miklos@szeredi.hu>,
        "linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>,
        "viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk" <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        "dchinner@redhat.com" <dchinner@redhat.com>,
        "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        "sfrench@samba.org" <sfrench@samba.org>,
        "ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 6:53 PM Trond Myklebust <trondmy@hammerspace.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2021-02-15 at 18:34 +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 5:42 PM Luis Henriques <lhenriques@suse.de>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Nicolas Boichat reported an issue when trying to use the
> > > copy_file_range
> > > syscall on a tracefs file.  It failed silently because the file
> > > content is
> > > generated on-the-fly (reporting a size of zero) and copy_file_range
> > > needs
> > > to know in advance how much data is present.
> > >
> > > This commit restores the cross-fs restrictions that existed prior
> > > to
> > > 5dae222a5ff0 ("vfs: allow copy_file_range to copy across devices")
> > > and
> > > removes generic_copy_file_range() calls from ceph, cifs, fuse, and
> > > nfs.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 5dae222a5ff0 ("vfs: allow copy_file_range to copy across
> > > devices")
> > > Link:
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20210212044405.4120619-1-drinkcat@chromium.org/
> > > Cc: Nicolas Boichat <drinkcat@chromium.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Luis Henriques <lhenriques@suse.de>
> >
> > Code looks ok.
> > You may add:
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
> >
> > I agree with Trond that the first paragraph of the commit message
> > could
> > be improved.
> > The purpose of this change is to fix the change of behavior that
> > caused the regression.
> >
> > Before v5.3, behavior was -EXDEV and userspace could fallback to
> > read.
> > After v5.3, behavior is zero size copy.
> >
> > It does not matter so much what makes sense for CFR to do in this
> > case (generic cross-fs copy).  What matters is that nobody asked for
> > this change and that it caused problems.
> >
>
> No. I'm saying that this patch should be NACKed unless there is a real
> explanation for why we give crap about this tracefs corner case and why
> it can't be fixed.
>
> There are plenty of reasons why copy offload across filesystems makes
> sense, and particularly when you're doing NAS. Clone just doesn't cut
> it when it comes to disaster recovery (whereas backup to a different
> storage unit does). If the client has to do the copy, then you're
> effectively doubling the load on the server, and you're adding
> potentially unnecessary network traffic (or at the very least you are
> doubling that traffic).
>

I don't understand the use case you are describing.

Which filesystem types are you talking about for source and target
of copy_file_range()?

To be clear, the original change was done to support NFS/CIFS server-side
copy and those should not be affected by this change.

Thanks,
Amir.