From: Bernd Schubert <bernd.schubert@fastmail.fm>
To: Daniel Rosenberg <drosen@google.com>,
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>,
Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
kernel-team@android.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] Fuse Passthrough cache issues
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2024 15:27:43 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <315aef06-794d-478f-93a3-8a2da14ec18c@fastmail.fm> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240703010215.2013266-1-drosen@google.com>
On 7/3/24 03:02, Daniel Rosenberg wrote:
> I've been attempting to recreate Android's usage of Fuse Passthrough with the
> version now merged in the kernel, and I've run into a couple issues. The first
> one was pretty straightforward, and I've included a patch, although I'm not
> convinced that it should be conditional, and it may need to do more to ensure
> that the cache is up to date.
>
> If your fuse daemon is running with writeback cache enabled, writes with
> passthrough files will cause problems. Fuse will invalidate attributes on
> write, but because it's in writeback cache mode, it will ignore the requested
> attributes when the daemon provides them. The kernel is the source of truth in
> this case, and should update the cached values during the passthrough write.
Could you explain why you want to have the combination passthrough and
writeback cache?
I think Amirs intention was to have passthrough and cache writes
conflicting, see fuse_file_passthrough_open() and
fuse_file_cached_io_open().
Also in <libfuse>/example/passthrough_hp.cc in sfs_init():
/* Passthrough and writeback cache are conflicting modes */
With that I wonder if either fc->writeback_cache should be ignored when
a file is opened in passthrough mode, or if fuse_file_io_open() should
ignore FOPEN_PASSTHROUGH when fc->writeback_cache is set. Either of both
would result in the opposite of what you are trying to achieve - which
is why I think it is important to understand what is your actual goal.
I think idea for conflicting file cached and passthrough modes is that
the backing inode can already provide a cache - why another one for fuse?
>
> The other issue I ran into is the restriction on opening a file in passthrough
> and non passthrough modes. In Android, one of our main usecases for passthrough
> is location metadata redaction. Apps without the location permission get back
> nulled out data when they read image metadata location. If an app has that
> permission, it can open the file in passthrough mode, but otherwise the daemon
> opens the file in normal fuse mode where it can do the redaction.
>
> Currently in passthrough, this behavior is explicitly blocked. What's needed to
> allow this? The page caches can contain different data, but in this case that's
> a feature, not a bug. They could theoretically be backed by entirely different
> things, although that would be fairly confusing. I would think the main thing
> we'd need would be to invalidate areas of the cache when writing in passthrough
> mode to give the daemon the opportunity to react to what's there now, and also
> something in the other direction. Might make more sense as something the daemon
> can opt into.
>
> Any thoughts on these issues? And does the proposed fix make sense to you?
>
>
>
> Daniel Rosenberg (1):
> fuse: Keep attributes consistent with Passthrough
>
> fs/fuse/passthrough.c | 15 +++++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
>
> base-commit: 73e931504f8e0d42978bfcda37b323dbbd1afc08
Thanks,
Bernd
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-07-03 13:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-07-03 1:02 Daniel Rosenberg
2024-07-03 1:02 ` [PATCH 1/1] fuse: Keep attributes consistent with Passthrough Daniel Rosenberg
2024-07-03 13:27 ` Bernd Schubert [this message]
2024-07-03 14:41 ` [PATCH 0/1] Fuse Passthrough cache issues Amir Goldstein
2024-07-03 16:09 ` Bernd Schubert
2024-07-03 16:24 ` Amir Goldstein
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=315aef06-794d-478f-93a3-8a2da14ec18c@fastmail.fm \
--to=bernd.schubert@fastmail.fm \
--cc=amir73il@gmail.com \
--cc=drosen@google.com \
--cc=kernel-team@android.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=miklos@szeredi.hu \
/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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®