From: Clay Harris <[email protected]>
To: Andreas Dilger <[email protected]>
Cc: Stefan Roesch <[email protected]>,
[email protected],
linux-fsdevel <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/5] io_uring: add xattr support
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2021 05:40:48 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
On Tue, Nov 30 2021 at 00:53:45 -0600, Clay Harris quoth thus:
> On Tue, Nov 30 2021 at 00:37:03 -0600, Clay Harris quoth thus:
>
> > On Mon, Nov 29 2021 at 20:16:02 -0700, Andreas Dilger quoth thus:
> >
> > >
> > > > On Nov 29, 2021, at 6:08 PM, Clay Harris <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Nov 29 2021 at 14:12:52 -0800, Stefan Roesch quoth thus:
> > > >
> > > >> This adds the xattr support to io_uring. The intent is to have a more
> > > >> complete support for file operations in io_uring.
> > > >>
> > > >> This change adds support for the following functions to io_uring:
> > > >> - fgetxattr
> > > >> - fsetxattr
> > > >> - getxattr
> > > >> - setxattr
> > > >
> > > > You may wish to consider the following.
> > > >
> > > > Patching for these functions makes for an excellent opportunity
> > > > to provide a better interface. Rather than implement fXetattr
> > > > at all, you could enable io_uring to use functions like:
> > > >
> > > > int Xetxattr(int dfd, const char *path, const char *name,
> > > > [const] void *value, size_t size, int flags);
> > >
> > > This would naturally be named "...xattrat()"?
> >
> > Indeed!
> >
> > > > Not only does this simplify the io_uring interface down to two
> > > > functions, but modernizes and fixes a deficit in usability.
> > > > In terms of io_uring, this is just changing internal interfaces.
One more reason, it would be very desirable if io_uring called a
*etxattrat-like interface, is that the old f*etxattr calls require an fd
open for reading (fget*) or writing (fset*). So, you're out of luck if
you have an execute-only file or just an O_PATH descriptor! In those
cases, you're forced to use a pathname for every call. Not very efficient
for people who choose to use the highly optimized io_uring interface.
> > > Even better would be the ability to get/set an array of xattrs in
> > > one call, to avoid repeated path lookups in the common case of
> > > handling multiple xattrs on a single file.
> >
> > True.
> >
> > > > Although unnecessary for io_uring, it would be nice to at least
> > > > consider what parts of this code could be leveraged for future
> > > > Xetxattr2 syscalls.
> > s/Xetxattr2/Xetxattrat/
>
> I forgot to mention a final thought about the interface.
> Unless there is a really good reason (security auditing??), there
> is no reason to have a removexattr() function. That seems much
> better handled by passing NULL for value and specifying a remove
> flag in flags to setxattrat().
>
> > > >
> > > >> Patch 1: fs: make user_path_at_empty() take a struct filename
> > > >> The user_path_at_empty filename parameter has been changed
> > > >> from a const char user pointer to a filename struct. io_uring
> > > >> operates on filenames.
> > > >> In addition also the functions that call user_path_at_empty
> > > >> in namei.c and stat.c have been modified for this change.
> > > >>
> > > >> Patch 2: fs: split off setxattr_setup function from setxattr
> > > >> Split off the setup part of the setxattr function
> > > >>
> > > >> Patch 3: fs: split off the vfs_getxattr from getxattr
> > > >> Split of the vfs_getxattr part from getxattr. This will
> > > >> allow to invoke it from io_uring.
> > > >>
> > > >> Patch 4: io_uring: add fsetxattr and setxattr support
> > > >> This adds new functions to support the fsetxattr and setxattr
> > > >> functions.
> > > >>
> > > >> Patch 5: io_uring: add fgetxattr and getxattr support
> > > >> This adds new functions to support the fgetxattr and getxattr
> > > >> functions.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> There are two additional patches:
> > > >> liburing: Add support for xattr api's.
> > > >> This also includes the tests for the new code.
> > > >> xfstests: Add support for io_uring xattr support.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Stefan Roesch (5):
> > > >> fs: make user_path_at_empty() take a struct filename
> > > >> fs: split off setxattr_setup function from setxattr
> > > >> fs: split off the vfs_getxattr from getxattr
> > > >> io_uring: add fsetxattr and setxattr support
> > > >> io_uring: add fgetxattr and getxattr support
> > > >>
> > > >> fs/internal.h | 23 +++
> > > >> fs/io_uring.c | 325 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > >> fs/namei.c | 5 +-
> > > >> fs/stat.c | 7 +-
> > > >> fs/xattr.c | 114 +++++++-----
> > > >> include/linux/namei.h | 4 +-
> > > >> include/uapi/linux/io_uring.h | 8 +-
> > > >> 7 files changed, 439 insertions(+), 47 deletions(-)
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Signed-off-by: Stefan Roesch <[email protected]>
> > > >> base-commit: c2626d30f312afc341158e07bf088f5a23b4eeeb
> > > >> --
> > > >> 2.30.2
> > >
> > >
> > > Cheers, Andreas
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-11-30 11:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-11-29 22:12 [PATCH v1 0/5] io_uring: add xattr support Stefan Roesch
2021-11-29 22:12 ` [PATCH v1 1/5] fs: make user_path_at_empty() take a struct filename Stefan Roesch
2021-11-30 2:09 ` kernel test robot
2021-11-29 22:12 ` [PATCH v1 2/5] fs: split off setxattr_setup function from setxattr Stefan Roesch
2021-11-29 22:12 ` [PATCH v1 3/5] fs: split off the vfs_getxattr from getxattr Stefan Roesch
2021-11-29 22:12 ` [PATCH v1 4/5] io_uring: add fsetxattr and setxattr support Stefan Roesch
2021-11-29 22:12 ` [PATCH v1 5/5] io_uring: add fgetxattr and getxattr support Stefan Roesch
2021-11-30 1:08 ` [PATCH v1 0/5] io_uring: add xattr support Clay Harris
2021-11-30 3:16 ` Andreas Dilger
2021-11-30 6:37 ` Clay Harris
2021-11-30 6:53 ` Clay Harris
2021-11-30 11:40 ` Clay Harris [this message]
2021-11-30 7:19 ` Dave Chinner
2021-12-01 6:16 ` Stefan Roesch
2021-12-01 6:07 ` Stefan Roesch
2021-12-01 7:46 ` Clay Harris
2021-12-01 13:14 ` Christian Brauner
2021-12-01 12:19 ` Stefan Metzmacher
2021-12-01 19:52 ` Clay Harris
2021-12-01 20:05 ` Andreas Dilger
2021-12-03 17:58 ` Stefan Roesch
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20211130114048.bzimtybhqj6ztq2u@ps29521.dreamhostps.com \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox