Re: [RFC PATCH v3 6/8] fuse: implementation of lookup_handle+statx compound operation

[Jingbo Xu <jefflexu@linux.alibaba.com>]

On 4/9/26 7:10 PM, Luis Henriques wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 09 2026, Jingbo Xu wrote:
> 
>> Hi Luis,
>>
>> On 4/8/26 6:16 PM, Luis Henriques wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 07 2026, Joanne Koong wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Apr 7, 2026 at 2:20 PM Luis Henriques <luis@igalia.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Joanne,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Apr 07 2026, Joanne Koong wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2026 at 3:25 AM Luis Henriques <luis@igalia.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The implementation of lookup_handle+statx compound operation extends the
>>>>>>> lookup operation so that a file handle is be passed into the kernel.  It
>>>>>>> also needs to include an extra inarg, so that the parent directory file
>>>>>>> handle can be sent to user-space.  This extra inarg is added as an extension
>>>>>>> header to the request.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> By having a separate statx including in a compound operation allows the
>>>>>>> attr to be dropped from the lookup_handle request, simplifying the
>>>>>>> traditional FUSE lookup operation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Luis Henriques <luis@igalia.com>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>  fs/fuse/dir.c             | 294 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>>>>>>>  fs/fuse/fuse_i.h          |  23 ++-
>>>>>>>  fs/fuse/inode.c           |  48 +++++--
>>>>>>>  fs/fuse/readdir.c         |   2 +-
>>>>>>>  include/uapi/linux/fuse.h |  23 ++-
>>>>>>>  5 files changed, 355 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/fuse.h b/include/uapi/linux/fuse.h
>>>>>>> index 113583c4efb6..89e6176abe25 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/fuse.h
>>>>>>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/fuse.h
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  enum fuse_opcode {
>>>>>>> @@ -671,6 +676,8 @@ enum fuse_opcode {
>>>>>>>          */
>>>>>>>         FUSE_COMPOUND           = 54,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +       FUSE_LOOKUP_HANDLE      = 55,
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>         /* CUSE specific operations */
>>>>>>>         CUSE_INIT               = 4096,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> @@ -707,6 +714,20 @@ struct fuse_entry_out {
>>>>>>>         struct fuse_attr attr;
>>>>>>>  };
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +struct fuse_entry2_out {
>>>>>>> +       uint64_t        nodeid;
>>>>>>> +       uint64_t        generation;
>>>>>>> +       uint64_t        entry_valid;
>>>>>>> +       uint32_t        entry_valid_nsec;
>>>>>>> +       uint32_t        flags;
>>>>>>> +       uint64_t        spare;
>>>>>>> +};
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Luis,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Could you explain why we need a new struct fuse_entry2_out instead of
>>>>>> reusing struct fuse_entry_out? From what i see, the only differences
>>>>>> between them are that fuse_entry2_out drops attr_valid,
>>>>>> attr_valid_nsec, and struct fuse_attr. Is this done so that it saves
>>>>>> the ~100 bytes per lookup? Would it be cleaner from an abi perspective
>>>>>> to just reuse fuse_entry_out and ignore the attr fields if they're not
>>>>>> necessary? The reason I'm asking is because I'm looking at how you're
>>>>>> doing the lookup request reply to see if the fuse passthrough stuff
>>>>>> for metadata/directory operations can be combined with it. But I'm not
>>>>>> fully understanding why fuse_entry2_out is needed here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm also a bit confused by why the compound with statx is needed here,
>>>>>> could you explain this part? I see the call to fuse_statx_to_attr()
>>>>>> after do_lookup_handle_statx(),  but fuse_statx_to_attr() converts the
>>>>>> statx reply right back to a struct fuse_attr for inode setup, so if
>>>>>> FUSE_LOOKUP_HANDLE returned struct fuse_entry_out instead of struct
>>>>>> fuse_entry2_out, doesn't this solve the problem of needing to compound
>>>>>> it with a statx or getattr request? I also noticed that the statx part
>>>>>> uses FUSE_ROOT_ID as a workaround for the node id because the actual
>>>>>> nodeid isn't known yet, this seems like another sign that the
>>>>>> attributes stuff should just be part of the lookup response itself
>>>>>> rather than a separate operation?
>>>>>
>>>>> First of all, thanks a lot for looking into this patchset.  Much
>>>>> appreciated!
>>>>>
>>>>> The main reason for swapping the usage of attr by statx is that statx
>>>>> includes some attributes that attr does not (e.g. btime).  And since I was
>>>>> adding a new FUSE operation, it would be a good time for using statx
>>>>> instead.  (Moreover, as new attributes may be added to statx in the
>>>>> future, the benefits of using statx could eventually be even greater.)
>>>>>
>>>>> This was suggested by Miklos here[0], before converting the whole thing to
>>>>> use compound commands.  So, I was going to use fuse_statx in the _out args
>>>>> for lookup_handle.  However, because the interface was getting a bit
>>>>> complex with extra args (and ext headers!), Miklos ended up suggesting[1]
>>>>> to remove attr completely from the lookup_handle operation, and use
>>>>> compounds instead to have the full functionality.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for the context and links, Luis!
>>>>
>>>> Using fuse_statx over fuse_getattr makes sense to me for the new
>>>> FUSE_LOOKUP_HANDLE op but the part I am confused about is why it needs
>>>> to be compounded. If we are adding a new struct (struct
>>>> fuse_entry2_out) to the abi, why is it not simpler to just make the
>>>> new struct something like:
>>>>
>>>>   struct fuse_entry_handle_out {
>>>>       uint64_t    nodeid;
>>>>       uint64_t    generation;
>>>>       uint64_t    entry_valid;
>>>>       uint64_t    attr_valid;
>>>>       uint32_t    entry_valid_nsec;
>>>>       uint32_t    attr_valid_nsec;
>>>>       struct fuse_statx stat;
>>>>   };
>>>>
>>>> and avoid the compound stuff altogether? Is it because that would make
>>>> the struct fuse_entry_handle_out too big to be stack-allocated and
>>>> would thus have to be heap allocated? But if I'm recalling correctly,
>>>> the compound requests path requires heap allocations as well. Although
>>>> at that point if we're gonna have to do the heap allocation, then we
>>>> might as well just also embed the struct fuse_file_handle inside
>>>> struct fuse_entry_handle_out?
>>>
>>> I'm open to drop the usage of compounds for this, of course.  In fact,
>>> during the v2 discussions I suggested here[0] the usage of a similar
>>> struct fuse_entry_handle_out.  Using compound commands was a way to try to
>>> simplify the interface.  But maybe at that point I was too quick at
>>> jumping into the compound commands suggestion.  It may make sense to
>>> reevaluate this decision if you think it simplifies things, specially for
>>> passthrough.
>>>
>>> [0] https://lore.kernel.org/all/87zf6nov6c.fsf@wotan.olymp
>>>
>>
>> Many thanks for your work on this.
>>
>> Just FYI We are also interested in the kernel-maintained filehandle,
>> which can dramatically help reduce the memory footprint on the FUSE
>> server side.
> 
> Awesome!
> 
>> It just seems that the overall design is still not clear right now.  I'd
>> like to and would be happy if I could help any.
> 
> Thanks you, Jingbo.  I guess that for now we need to revalidate the usage
> of compounds or going back to my previous (v2) approach.  If we end up
> deciding to drop compound commands, I can try to get a new version of the
> patchset before LSFMM so that we can eventually discuss more details
> there.

Awesome.  Looking forward for the progress on it!


-- 
Thanks,
Jingbo